This 14th day of September 2017, upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On August 25, 2017, the appellant, Oscar Martinez, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Superior Court order was dated July 19, 2017 and docketed on July 20, 2017. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 21, 2017. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Martinez to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. *2 (2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Martinez argues his appeal is timely because he mailed the notice of appeal on August 17, 2017. A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective. ^[2] An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. ^[3] 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. ^[4]

(3) Martinez does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. This appeal must be dismissed.

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

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

[1] The criminal number that appears on the Superior Court’s order (Cr. ID No. 30306270DI) is incorrect.

[2] Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).

[3] Carr , 554 A.2d at 779.

[4] Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2