Porter v. Townsend

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRUCE PORTER,1 §
§ No. 61, 2022
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of
§ the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CN19-04055
ROSIE TOWNSEND, § Petition No. 20-13074
§
Respondent, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 15, 2022
Decided: March 28, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 25, 2022, the appellant, Bruce Porter, filed a notice of
appeal from a Family Court order, dated and docketed on December 13, 2021,
resolving several matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce. A timely notice of appeal
was due in this Court by January 12, 2022.2 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice
directing Porter to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely
1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2
Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).
filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, Porter states that he was unable to
file a timely notice of appeal because he contracted COVID-19 and is in very poor
health.
(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be
received by the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4 An
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the
jurisdictional requirements.5 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to
file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely
appeal cannot be considered.6
(3) Porter does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure
to file a timely appeal in this case is attributable to court-related personnel. This
appeal must therefore be dismissed.7
3
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.1989).
4
Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
5
Ward v. Taylor, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2019); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-
87 (Del. 2012).
6
Ward, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
7
See, e.g., Washington v. Div. of Fam. Servs., 2011 WL 6201770, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2011)
(dismissing untimely appeal where the appellant said she had been in ill health but had not shown
that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rules 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
Justice
3