Case ID: nc_216/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. HAYWOOD (HAZEL) MITCHELL.
    (Filed 29 November, 1939.)
    •Criminal Law § 80—
    When defendant fails to make out and serve Ms statement of case on appeal witMn the time allowed, no agreement for extension of time having been made, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 17, but when defendant stands convicted of a capital crime this will be done only after an inspection of the record fails to disclose error.
    MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.
    
      Attorney-General McMullan for the State.
    
   Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried at July Term, 1939, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, upon an indictment charging him with tbe murder of George Green, and convieted of murder in tbe first degree. Judgment of death in tbe manner prescribed by law was thereupon rendered. Tbe defendant gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court and was allowed forty-five days in which to make up and serve bis case on appeal, and tbe solicitor was allowed thirty days thereafter to make up and serve countercase or file exceptions.

Tbe Attorney-General makes and files a motion to docket and dismiss tbe appeal, under Rule 17, for tbe reason that defendant has failed to perfect and prosecute tbe same, and therewith files transcript of tbe case and certificate of tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, showing that tbe appeal was not perfected within tbe time provided by law, and that no agreement for an extension of time to file case on appeal has been made. Tbe time for serving case on appeal has expired.

Tbe appeal must be dismissed. Tbe Court, however, has carefully examined tbe record in tbe case as docketed in this Court and finds no error. S. v. Goldston, 201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926; S. v. Day, 215 N. C., 566, 2 S. E. (2d), 569; S. v. Mayes, ante, 542.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.