Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL HARRISON DOCKERY
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1974-11-06
Citations: 23 N.C. App. 554
Docket Number: No. 7428SC855
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL HARRISON DOCKERY
Judges: Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL HARRISON DOCKERY
No. 7428SC855
(Filed 6 November 1974)
Criminal Law § 161— appeal as exception to judgment
An appeal is an exception to the judgment presenting the face of the record proper for review.
On certiorari from Friday, Judge, 27 February 1974 Session of Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 October 1974.
Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with armed robbery pursuant to G.S. 14-87. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury.
The State offered evidence that the defendant stole Cline Worley’s wallet and eleven dollars ($11.00) by threatening his life with a knife. The defendant thereafter fled with the property and was eventually apprehended.
The defendant’s evidence was principally his own denial of the charges and other evidence that it was not the defendant who committed the crime.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From a sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years, the defendant seeks a review.
Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General George W. Boylan for the State.
Assistant Public Defender Robert L. Harrell for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Judge.
As the appellant brings forward no assignment of error in the brief, it is deemed abandoned. See Court of Appeals Rule 28. However, an appeal is an exception to the judgment presenting the face of the record proper for review. In this case, the indictment was proper in form, the evidence supported the verdict of guilty as charged, and the judgment was supported by the verdict. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.