State v. Maides

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Maides

118 S.E.2d 401, 254 N.C. 223, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 378

DecidedMarch 1, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.E.2d 401 (State v. Maides) 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. Maides, 118 S.E.2d 401, 254 N.C. 223, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 378 (N.C. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Curta m.

The Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal for that there is no statement, or settlement of case on appeal, and the Court is relegated to an examination of an obvious fragmentary and selective portion of the record. However, since there is data in the record from which an appeal may be inferred, the motion will not be allowed. Nevertheless error upon the face of the record is not made to appear. Indeed where defendant enters a general appearance in court, he waives any objection predicated upon any irregularity in the warrant. S. v. Harris, 213 N.C. 648, 197 S.E. 142. See also S. v. Turner, 170 N.C. 701, 86 S.E. 1019, and also S. v. Johnson, 247 N.C. 240, 100 S.E. 2d 494.

In the case in hand the record shows that defendant entered plea of not guilty, and was tried and convicted in the Recorder’s Court.

Moreover, the records of the proceedings in this case are subject to the charge that, as stated in S. v. King, 222 N.C. 137, 22 S.E. 2d 241, “they are incomplete and unduly abbreviated and ciphered, a practice that should not be pursued, and is not approved in the recording of the proceedings of a court of record.” See also S. v. Edmundson, 244 N.C. 693, 94 S.E. 2d 844.

Affirmed.

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

PeR Curta m.

The Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal for that there is no statement, or settlement of case on appeal, and the Court is relegated to an examination of an obvious fragmentary and selective portion of the record. However, since there is data in the record from which an appeal may be inferred, the motion will not be allowed. Nevertheless error upon the face of the record is not made to appear. Indeed where defendant enters a general appearance in court, he waives any objection predicated upon any irregularity in the warrant. S. v. Harris, 213 N.C. 648, 197 S.E. 142. See also S. v. Turner, 170 N.C. 701, 86 S.E. 1019, and also S. v. Johnson, 247 N.C. 240, 100 S.E. 2d 494.

In the case in hand the record shows that defendant entered plea of not guilty, and was tried and convicted in the Recorder’s Court.

Moreover, the records of the proceedings in this case are subject to the charge that, as stated in S. v. King, 222 N.C. 137, 22 S.E. 2d 241, “they are incomplete and unduly abbreviated and ciphered, a practice that should not be pursued, and is not approved in the recording of the proceedings of a court of record.” See also S. v. Edmundson, 244 N.C. 693, 94 S.E. 2d 844.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E.2d 401, 254 N.C. 223, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maides-nc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack