State v. Johnson

167 S.E.2d 497, 4 N.C. App. 681, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1579
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 13 N.C. App. 323
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided May 28, 1969·No. No. 698SC234·Published

Opinion

Campbell, J.

The defendant had only one exception and in the assignments of error the defendant set out:

“That EehoR op Law ApfeaRS ON the Faoe op the ReooRD PROPER IN THAT THE FINDINGS OP FACT MADE BY THE COURT DO NOT Support the Judgment op Revocation:”

In his brief, the defendant attempted to raise other errors, namely, that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing on the revocation of probation; he was not represented by counsel; and the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of fact.

“A contention in the brief not based on any exception or assignment of error will not be considered. ...” 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 45, p. 187. Anderson v. Luther, 249 N.C. 128, 105 S.E. 2d 293.

The findings of fact clearly support the judgment entered by Judge Parker, and the record on appeal does not show any error in the trial court.

Affirmed.

Mallard, C.J., and Morris, J., concur.

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

State v. Johnson, 167 S.E.2d 497, 4 N.C. App. 681, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1579 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).

167 S.E.2d 497 (State v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Luther
105 S.E.2d 293 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)