Case Name: STATE of Maine v. Bruce ROSS
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 2004-01-30
Citations: 841 A.2d 814
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Maine v. Bruce ROSS.
Judges: Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 841
Pages: 814–815

Head Matter:
2004 ME 12
STATE of Maine v. Bruce ROSS.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 22, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2004.
Norman R. Crotteau, District Attorney, Joseph M. O’Connor, Asst. Dist. Atty., South Paris, for State.
Ron E. Hoffman, Rumford, for defendant.
Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bruce Ross appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Rumford, McElwee, J.) convicting him of assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207(1)(A) (Supp.2003). We dismiss Ross's appeal for his failure to file an appendix in accordance with M.RApp. P. 8(g). Specifically, to the extent Ross is appealing from the trial court's grant of a motion to amend the complaint, Ross has failed to include that ruling as required by Rule 8(g)(3), and has also failed to include the criminal complaint as required by Rule 8(g)(4); nor does the appendix include the docket entries, the judgment, or the complaint on the second assault charge, despite the mandate of Rule 8(g)(2-4).
The entry is:
Appeal dismissed.
. We note that were we to ignore the deficiencies in the appendix filed by Ross, Ross has failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality we attribute to statutory enactment. See Town of Baldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52, ¶ 9, 794 A.2d 62, 66.