Case Name: IN RE REVOCATION OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE OF THOMAS DELAND CHURCH
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1976-05-19
Citations: 29 N.C. App. 511
Docket Number: No. 7625SC23
Parties: IN RE REVOCATION OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE OF THOMAS DELAND CHURCH
Judges: Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
IN RE REVOCATION OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE OF THOMAS DELAND CHURCH
No. 7625SC23
(Filed 19 May 1976)
Appeal and Error § 44— failure to file brief — dismissal of appeal
Appeal is dismissed by the Court of Appeals ex mero motu for failure of appellant to file a brief. App. R. 13(c).
Appeal by petitioner from Briggs, Judge. Judgment entered 5 September 1975 in Superior Court, Catawba County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 April 1976.
On 25 March 1975, petitioner, Thomas Deland Church, received notice from the Division of Motor Vehicles that his motor vehicle operator’s license was suspended, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 20-16.2, for a period of six months for willfully refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test after having been arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Petitioner requested and was afforded a hearing before the Division pursuant to G.S. 20-16.2 (d). After the hearing, petitioner received notice that the suspension should be sustained effective 3 June 1975. He petitioned the Superior Court for a hearing de novo as to the validity of the suspension pursuant to G.S. 20-16.2 (e) and G.S. 20-25 and for an order suspending the effective date of the license suspension until after a determination of the matter. Judge Ferrell entered an order on 3 June 1975 staying the effective date of the license suspension pending the hearing.
From judgment entered on 5 September 1975, after the hearing dissolving “all restraining or stay orders” and affirming the order of revocation, petitioner appealed.
No counsel appeared for the State.
No counsel appeared for petitioner appellant.

Opinion:
HEDRICK, Judge.
Rule 13(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:
"Consequence of Failure to File and Serve Briefs. If an appellant fails to file and serve his brief within the time allowed, the appeal may be dismissed on motion of an appellee or on the court's own initiative. If an appellee fails to file and serve his brief within the time allowed, he may not be heard in oral argument except by permission of the court."
Appellant has not filed a brief in this Court. The Court, ex mero motu, dismisses the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.