{
  "id": 8549199,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ODESSA GARNER BROWN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7514SC685",
  "first_page": "355",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 355"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 339",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552537
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/23/0554-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20587146200415546
    },
    "sha256": "0986ca1e7e88213e568cc1ab4dfd9d149375fce8831fc7059d5da993f31caf73",
    "simhash": "1:06e25c0b8ed33ccd",
    "word_count": 283
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ODESSA GARNER BROWN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nNo briefs have been filed, nor was oral argument undertaken. Exceptions in the record not set out in appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Failure by appellant to file a brief works an abandonment of his assignments of error, except those appearing upon the face of the record proper, which are cognizable ex mero motu. State v. Dockery, 23 N.C. App. 554, 209 S.E. 2d 339 (1974).\nError does not appear upon the face of the record.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ODESSA GARNER BROWN\nNo. 7514SC685\n(Filed 7 January 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 166\u2014 abandonment of exceptions\nExceptions in the record not set out in appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be deemed abandoned.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 166\u2014 failure to file brief\nFailure of appellant to file a brief works an abandonment of his assignments of error except those appearing upon the face of the record proper, which are cognizable ex mero motu.\nAppeal by defendant from Canaday, Judge. Judgment entered 24 April 1975 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 November 1975.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with felonious possession of heroin with intent to sell or deliver. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty .as charged. From a judgment imposing a term of imprisonment, the defendant seeks a review."
  },
  "file_name": "0355-01",
  "first_page_order": 383,
  "last_page_order": 384
}