lN THE SUPREl\/[E COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JULIE BAILEY, §
§ No. 96, 2016
Defendant BeloW, §
Appellant, § Court BeloW: Superior Court
§ of the State of DelaWare
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 0409005305
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Plaintiff BeloW, §
Appe1lee. §

Submitted: March l4, 2016
Decided: May 27, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.
0 R D E R

This 27th day of May 2016, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On February 29, 2016, the appellant, Julie Bailey, filed a notice of
appeal &om a Superior Court order dated January 26, 2016, and docketed on January
27, 2016, denying her motion for postconviction relief. On its face, the notice of
appeal was filed one day late. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, the appeal was due to

be filed within thirty days of docketing of the order, z'.e., on or before February 26,

2016.1

1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days
after entry upon the docket of a judgment or order in any proceeding for postconviction relief).

(2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction.z The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of
appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing
is attributable to court-related personnel.3

(3) On February 29, 2016, the Clerl< issued a notice directing Bailey to
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed." In response
to the notice, Bailey asserts that her notice of appeal was timely filed on Monday,
February 29, 2016.5 She is mistal<en. The first day of the appeal period was
Thursday, January 28, 2016, the day after the order was docketed. The last day of
the appeal period was Friday, February 26, 2016. Bailey is mistaken that a notice of
appeal is considered timely filed if it is received the day after the last day of the
appeal period. To be timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within the thirty
day period.&

(4) Bailey does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that the delay

in filing the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently

2 carr v. S¢are, 554 A.zd 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
3 Bey v. S¢a¢e, 402 A.zd 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b).

5 Bailey correctly notes that the Clerk’s Office was closed on Saturday and Sunday, February 27
and 28, 2016.

6 Supra note 1.

this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the
timely filing of a notice of appeal.

NOW, TPHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Rana’y l Holland
Justice

