Court Opinion

ID: 9574645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:06:39.918261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:26.486486
License: Public Domain

Judge STEELMAN
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
I would not invoke the provisions of Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to salvage defendant’s appeal in this matter. The appeal should be dismissed as not being properly before this Court. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(3) (2006).
The case of State v. Buchanan, 170 N.C. App. 692, 613 S.E.2d 356 (2005), involved the identical issue presented in this case. Defendant moved at the close of the State’s evidence for dismissal. This motion was denied. Defendant failed to renew the motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence. This Court, relying upon the Supreme *827Court decision in State v. Dennison, 359 N.C. 312, 608 S.E.2d 756 (2005), and Viar v. N. C. Dep’t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 610 S.E.2d 360 (2005), declined to invoke Rule 2 and dismissed defendant’s appeal.
I acknowledge that by its terms, Rule 2 is discretionary. See State v. McCoy, 171 N.C. App. 636, 639, 615 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2005). However, for the law to have any meaning or integrity, it must be applied in a consistent manner. If it is not, then it is being applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which can only bring disrepute upon the courts.
This case is distinguishable from the case of State v. Johnston, 173 N.C. App. 334, 338, 618 S.E.2d 807, 810 (2005), which found that the invocation of Rule 2 in that case was in “the public interest.” Neither the defendant nor the majority opinion assert that this case is in “the public interest.” Id.
I would dismiss the defendant’s appeal in this matter, following the holding in the case of State v. Buchanan, 170 N.C. App. 692, 613 S.E.2d 356 (2005).