State v. Mills

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Mills

220 S.E.2d 209, 28 N.C. App. 219, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1723

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 17, 1975

DocketNo. 7526SC540

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 S.E.2d 209 (State v. Mills) 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

State v. Mills, 220 S.E.2d 209, 28 N.C. App. 219, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1723 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant’s record on appeal was docketed on the 109th day after entry of judgment, and the 28 April 1975 order extending time does not validly extend the time for docketing. The record fails to present documents or events in chronological order. The record contains no exceptions, nor does either of the two assignments of error refer to an exception. The appeal, therefore, can present only the face of the record for review. Because of defendant’s indigency, rather than dismiss the appeal, we have considered this appeal as an exception to the judgment, presenting the face of. the record for review. We have reviewed the record and find' that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Parker and Martin concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant’s record on appeal was docketed on the 109th day after entry of judgment, and the 28 April 1975 order extending time does not validly extend the time for docketing. The record fails to present documents or events in chronological order. The record contains no exceptions, nor does either of the two assignments of error refer to an exception. The appeal, therefore, can present only the face of the record for review. Because of defendant’s indigency, rather than dismiss the appeal, we have considered this appeal as an exception to the judgment, presenting the face of. the record for review. We have reviewed the record and find' that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Parker and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.E.2d 209, 28 N.C. App. 219, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mills-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack