Court Opinion

ID: 9521869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:14:13.7213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:22.320902
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT, dissenting: I am compelled to dissent from the majority opinion filed in this case since I believe the appeal should have been dismissed because of procedural deficiencies on the part of the State. The deficiencies as I note the same were the failure to serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the defendant-appellee, the failure to file a praecipe for record, and the failure of the State to present a report of proceedings to the trial court for certification. I agree with the majority that none of these deficiencies standing alone would warrant the dismissal of an appeal; however, the cumulative effect of three deficiencies in the procedural process presents a different situation. In the first instance their cumulative effect is to impede the appellate process, and secondly, the defendant-appellee was prejudiced, inconvenienced and required to exercise an unnecessary amount of diligence and industriousness in order to respond to the appeal of the State. I note that in the majority opinion strong disapproval is expressed regarding the failure of the State to comply with the rules pertaining to appellate procedures. The majority opinion states that in the future this court will not hesitate to dismiss an appeal where prejudice results to an appellee as the result of the appellant’s noncompliance with the rules. In the instant case the defendant-appellee was prejudiced in that his task in replying to the appeal of the State was unnecessarily arduous. I fail to understand the rationale of granting relief to future appellees but denying the same relief to the appellee in the instant case. For the reasons set forth I believe that the appeal of the State should have been dismissed.