State v. . Hopkins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Hopkins

7 S.E.2d 566, 217 N.C. 324, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 231

DecidedMarch 20, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.E.2d 566 (State v. . Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Hopkins, 7 S.E.2d 566, 217 N.C. 324, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 231 (N.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At the November Term, 1939, Rutherford Superior Court, it being the term for the trial of criminal causes, the defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with the capital felony of murder of one Roy Watkins. There was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Judgment was thereupon duly entered that the defendant suffer the penalty of death by asphyxiation, as provided by law. S. v. Morris, 215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554; S. v. Young, 216 N. C., 626. From the judgment thus entered the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed forty-five days to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal. The solicitor was given thirty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or counter-case.

On 12 February, 1940, the defendant filed in the office of the clerk of this Court a certified copy of the record proper and of the defendant’s case on appeal, which case or appeal was served on the solicitor 4 Janu *325 ary, 1940. Tbe defendant bas failed, however, to file nine typewritten copies of the record and case on appeal as required by Rule 22, and has likewise failed to file a brief as required by Rule 28.

The Attorney-General, for the State, in due time, filed a written motion to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rules 22 and 28.

We have carefully examined the record proper and the defendant’s case on appeal attached thereto. There is no apparent error on the face of the record and the assignments of error in the case on appeal are without substantial merit. Therefore, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rules 22 and 28 must be allowed. S. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 138, 140 S. E., 728; S. v. Massey, 199 N. C., 601, 155 S. E., 255; S. v. Goldston, 201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926.

The affidavit and order for appeal in forma pauperis is not in strict accord with the statute. S. v. Smith, 152 N. C., 842, 67 S. E., 965.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

At the November Term, 1939, Rutherford Superior Court, it being the term for the trial of criminal causes, the defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with the capital felony of murder of one Roy Watkins. There was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Judgment was thereupon duly entered that the defendant suffer the penalty of death by asphyxiation, as provided by law. S. v. Morris, 215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554; S. v. Young, 216 N. C., 626. From the judgment thus entered the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed forty-five days to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal. The solicitor was given thirty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or counter-case.

On 12 February, 1940, the defendant filed in the office of the clerk of this Court a certified copy of the record proper and of the defendant’s case on appeal, which case or appeal was served on the solicitor 4 Janu *325 ary, 1940. Tbe defendant bas failed, however, to file nine typewritten copies of the record and case on appeal as required by Rule 22, and has likewise failed to file a brief as required by Rule 28.

The Attorney-General, for the State, in due time, filed a written motion to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rules 22 and 28.

We have carefully examined the record proper and the defendant’s case on appeal attached thereto. There is no apparent error on the face of the record and the assignments of error in the case on appeal are without substantial merit. Therefore, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rules 22 and 28 must be allowed. S. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 138, 140 S. E., 728; S. v. Massey, 199 N. C., 601, 155 S. E., 255; S. v. Goldston, 201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926.

The affidavit and order for appeal in forma pauperis is not in strict accord with the statute. S. v. Smith, 152 N. C., 842, 67 S. E., 965.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.E.2d 566, 217 N.C. 324, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hopkins-nc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack