Opinion ID: 2170030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: on motion to dismiss state's brief

Text: We note that the appellant has filed, pro se, a petition to dismiss the State's brief because it is non-factual and false, bringing our attention to five pages in the transcript which he says bear out his claim. We are unable, because of the different pagination of the transcript as it appears as part of the full record, to examine this claim. We did notice, however, that the State's brief misstated the facts shown by the record in two instances. First, the State's brief recited that the evidence showed that Anderson entered the Tillman house by breaking down the kitchen door. The record shows that he entered by breaking the kitchen window. Second, the State's brief, in summarizing Joe Tillman's evidence, recited that Tillman said he heard Anderson say the remark about the television set and the dolls. Tillman did not directly identify which of the intruders said what. He did, however, ascribe the two remarks to the person who came upstairs. Tillman saw this man, who was Anderson. Anderson has not shown in what way these minor departures from the record prejudiced him, and the State's brief is not dismissed. GIVAN, C.J., and HUNTER, PRENTICE and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.