State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Moore

220 S.E.2d 860, 28 N.C. App. 353, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2688

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 7, 1976

DocketNo. 754SC569

StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.E.2d 860 (State v. Moore) 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. Moore, 220 S.E.2d 860, 28 N.C. App. 353, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2688 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

The court’s finding that the in-court identification of defendants by the victim of the robbery was based on the victim’s clear opportunity to observe defendants shortly before and at the time of the robbery, is supported by all of the evidence. There was no error in allowing the victim to identify defendants at trial.

Defendant Moore assigns as error the failure of the court to make a finding that he would not benefit from commitment as a “Youthful offender” before sentencing him. There is nothing in this record to indicate that Moore was under '21 at the time of sentencing and the assignment of error is overruled.

We note that the record on appeal does not contain a single exception. All assignments of error must be based on exceptions duly noted. Exceptions which appear for the first time under purported assignments of error will not be considered. We also note that the court allowed 120 days from the entry of judgments for docketing the record on. appeal. The appeal was docketed on the 152nd day following entry of judgments. Failure to comply with the Rules subjects ah appeal to dismissal. We have, nevertheless, elected to consider defendants’ appeals on their merits and find no .prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Arnold concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

The court’s finding that the in-court identification of defendants by the victim of the robbery was based on the victim’s clear opportunity to observe defendants shortly before and at the time of the robbery, is supported by all of the evidence. There was no error in allowing the victim to identify defendants at trial.

Defendant Moore assigns as error the failure of the court to make a finding that he would not benefit from commitment as a “Youthful offender” before sentencing him. There is nothing in this record to indicate that Moore was under '21 at the time of sentencing and the assignment of error is overruled.

We note that the record on appeal does not contain a single exception. All assignments of error must be based on exceptions duly noted. Exceptions which appear for the first time under purported assignments of error will not be considered. We also note that the court allowed 120 days from the entry of judgments for docketing the record on. appeal. The appeal was docketed on the 152nd day following entry of judgments. Failure to comply with the Rules subjects ah appeal to dismissal. We have, nevertheless, elected to consider defendants’ appeals on their merits and find no .prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Arnold concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.E.2d 860, 28 N.C. App. 353, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-ncctapp-1976.