Court Opinion

ID: 9577130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:31:59.34636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:00.642085
License: Public Domain

Judge Greene
dissenting.
I do not believe we should reach the merits of this case, because defendant failed to follow the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rules). See Wiseman v. Wiseman, 68 N.C. App. 252, 255, 314 S.E.2d 566, 567-68 (1984) (“The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to follow the [R]ules subjects an appeal to dismissal.”). Accordingly, I would dismiss defendant’s appeal.
In a civil case, an appellant must contract in writing with the court reporter for production of the portions of the transcript which are necessary for appellate review within ten days after filing notice of appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 7(a)(1).1 The appellant is required “to file a copy of the contract with the clerk of the trial tribunal.” Id.2 The *719court reporter must then produce and deliver the transcript within sixty days. N.C.R. App. P. 7(b)(1).3 The trial court may, “in its discretion, and for good cause shown by the reporter or by a party on behalf of the reporter,” extend the time to produce the transcript for an additional thirty days. Id.4 Any additional motion for an extension of time to produce the transcript “may only be made to the appellate court to which appeal has been taken.” Id.5 Noncompliance with the sixty-day deadline of Rule 7, where no good cause is shown for the appellant’s failure to request an extension, provides a basis for dismissal of the appeal. Anuforo v. Dennie, 119 N.C. App. 359, 363, 458 S.E.2d 523, 526 (1995); see also N.C.R. App. P. 25(a) (motion to dismiss “shall be allowed unless compliance [with the time limits contained in the Rules] or a waiver thereof is shown on the record, or unless the appellee shall consent to action out of time, or unless the court for good cause shall permit the action to be taken out of time” (emphasis added)).6
In this case, notice of appeal was timely filed by defendant on 8 January 1997. The contract for the transcript was dated 17 January 1997 and therefore was entered within the ten-day period provided by Rule 7. It follows that the transcript in this case was initially due by 18 March 1997 (sixty days from the date of the contract). The transcript was not delivered by 18 March 1997, but instead was delivered on 26 April 1997 (thirty-nine days beyond the time frame allowed in Rule 7). Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal should have been granted by the trial court. See N.C.R. App. P. 25(a).
Although I agree with the majority that we are bound by published decisions of this Court, see In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 36 (1989), I disagree that dismissal of this case would overrule our decision in Lockert v. Lockert, 116 N.C. App. 73, 446 S.E.2d 606, disc. review allowed and supersedeas allowed, 338 N.C. 311, 450 S.E.2d 490 (1994). la Lockert, we stated:
*720[I]f the court reporter fails to certify that the transcript has been delivered within the sixty-day period-permitted by Appellate Rule 7(b), the thirty-five day period within which an appellant must serve the proposed record on appeal does not begin to run until the court reporter does certify delivery of the transcript. To hold otherwise would allow a delay by a court reporter, whether with or without good excuse, to determine the rights of litigants to appellate review.
Lockert, 116 N.C. App. at 81, 446 S.E.2d at 610. This Court has since construed Lockert as holding that the “literal meaning of [a] rule of appellate procedure should not be followed where delay by [the] court reporter would deprive [a] litigant of appellate review.” Anuforo, 119 N.C. App. at 363, 458 S.E.2d at 526. In Anuforo, this Court also stated that “noncompliance with the 60-day deadline under Rule 7 may appropriately provide the basis for dismissal of an appeal.” Id. at 363, 458 S.E.2d at 526. I believe that we are bound by Anuforo and its interpretation of Lockert. See Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. at 384, 379 S.E.2d at 36.
In dismissing this case due to defendant’s noncompliance with Rule 7’s sixty-day deadline, we would not be allowing the court reporter to deprive defendant of appellate review. Defendant should have moved the trial court for an extension of time when it became apparent that additional time was needed, see N.C.R. App. P. 7(b)(1), and, if necessary, should have requested additional extensions from this Court, see N.C.R. App. P. 27(c). Accordingly, it follows that the court reporter’s actions have not deprived defendant of his right to appellate review; rather, defendant’s own failure to supervise the process of his appeal has deprived him of this right and requires that this appeal be dismissed for violation of Rule 7(b)(1).7

. I note that Rule 7 now provides that the appellant must “arrange for the transcription” within fourteen days after filing notice of appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 7(a)(1). This appeal was taken, however, prior to the May 1998 changes to the Rules; I therefore review defendant’s compliance with the Rules as they existed at the time his appeal was taken.

. Rule 7 currently provides that the “appellant shall file the written documentation of [the] transcript arrangement with the clerk of the trial tribunal, and serve a copy of it upon all other parties of record, and upon the person designated to prepare the transcript.” N.C.R. App. P. 7(a)(1).

. The current version of Rule 7 continues to require production and delivery of the transcript by the court reporter within sixty days. N.C.R. App. R 7(b)(1).

. Rule 7 now provides that “[t]he trial tribunal, in its discretion, and for good cause shown by the appellant may extend the time to produce the transcript for an additional 30 days.” N.C.R. App. P. 7(b)(1) (emphasis added). Rule 7 no longer specifically allows the court reporter to move for an extension. Id.

. This provision remains substantially unchanged. N.C.R. App. P. 7(b)(1).

. Rule 25 was not affected by the May 1998 amendments to the Rules.

. I acknowledge that the trial court did grant an extension of time to deliver the transcript (through 3 May 1997), pursuant to a request made by the court reporter, and the transcript was delivered within that extension (on 26 April 1997). It appears from the record, however, that this request was not timely made. In any event, that extension is not helpful to defendant because it exceeded the authority vested in the trial court to grant extensions. A trial court is only permitted to extend the time for delivery of the transcript thirty days beyond the time initially required by Rule 7(b)(1). In this case, the transcript was initially due on 18 March 1997 (sixty days after 17-January 1997) and the trial court only had authority under Rule 7 to extend that date to 17 April 1997 (thirty days past 18 March 1997). Defendant may not rely on Rule 27(c) as a basis for the trial court’s extension, because Rule 27(c) expressly gives only the appellate courts the authority to grant additional extensions of time for transcript delivery. N.C.R. App. P. 27(c).