Case ID: nc-app_19/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRITT, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FLOYD
    No. 7310SC633
    (Filed 10 October 1973)
    Criminal Law § 161 — appeal as exception to judgment
    The appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record.
    Appeal by defendant from Copeland, Judge, 16 April 1973 Session of Wake Superior Court.
    The bill of indictment returned against defendant charges that he did, on or about 29 July 1972, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously distribute a controlled substance, heroin, to Arthur Manning at 709 Jamaica Drive, Raleigh, N. C. Defendant pleaded not guilty, a jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of five years, to begin at expiration of sentences being served, defendant appealed.
    
      Attorney General Robert Morgan by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, and William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    
    
      Robert P. Gruber for defendant appellant.
    
   BRITT, Judge.

Although defendant’s brief contains no assignments of error, the appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record. State v. Cox, 281 N.C. 131, 187 S.E. 2d 785 (1972); State v. Harris, 14 N.C. App. 270, 188 S.E. 2d 2 (1972). “Ordinarily, in criminal cases the record proper consists of (1) the organization of the court, (2) the charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment.” State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 483, 183 S.E. 2d 669, 670 (1971).

In the case at bar, a careful review of the record proper fails to disclose either error of law or of legal inference.

No error.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.