Shirley v. Administrative Office of the Courts (TA-5983)

260 S.E.2d 448, 44 N.C. App. 188, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3191
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 4, 1979
DocketNo. 7910IC313
StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.E.2d 448 (Shirley v. Administrative Office of the Courts (TA-5983)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shirley v. Administrative Office of the Courts (TA-5983), 260 S.E.2d 448, 44 N.C. App. 188, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3191 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.

Appellant violated Rule 10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to set out any exceptions in the record on appeal, failing to make exceptions as the basis of the assignments of error, and failing to indicate the pages of the record on appeal where the exceptions appear. Appellant also violated App. R. 28(b)(3) by failing to refer in his brief to the assignments of error, exceptions and pages where they appear in the record on appeal.

[189]*189Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Rules are deemed abandoned. Appellant does not properly raise in his brief the question whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law support the order. Rule 10(a), North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

For these reasons the appeal is subject to dismissal. The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C. 231, 258 S.E. 2d 357 (1979); State v. Brown, 42 N.C. App. 724, 257 S.E. 2d 668 (1979).

The Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to a litigant appearing in propria persona. Neither counsel nor parties have any right to ignore the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Owens v. Boling, 274 N.C. 374, 163 S.E. 2d 396 (1968). The right of self-representation is not a license to avoid compliance with relevant rules of procedural law. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 45 L.Ed. 2d 562 (1975). See State v. Brincefield, 43 N.C. App. 49, 258 S.E. 2d 81 (1979).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Craver v. Craver
258 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
State v. Brincefield
258 S.E.2d 81 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Owens v. Boling
163 S.E.2d 396 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Brown
257 S.E.2d 668 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 S.E.2d 448, 44 N.C. App. 188, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-v-administrative-office-of-the-courts-ta-5983-ncctapp-1979.