{ "id": 8552186, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL OXENDINE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Oxendine", "decision_date": "1979-10-16", "docket_number": "No. 7912SC428", "first_page": "391", "last_page": "393", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 N.C. App. 391" } ], "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": "232 S.E. 2d 205", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559266, 8559241, 8559279, 8559248, 8559258 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0713-04", "/nc/291/0713-01", "/nc/291/0713-05", "/nc/291/0713-02", "/nc/291/0713-03" ] }, { "cite": "230 S.E. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 N.C. App. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550628 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/31/0520-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 248, "char_count": 3750, "ocr_confidence": 0.825, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1813549812920936e-07, "percentile": 0.7726301803695891 }, "sha256": "ebf2f8a14dceff902c2c6f69c944f88b9ce0654cba56871d3eb02494d353b12b", "simhash": "1:afdde0b86e4c92f8", "word_count": 646 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:38.047576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges VAUGHN and HILL concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL OXENDINE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ERWIN, Judge.\nDefendant was tried and convicted for the offense of murder in the second degree at the 24 April 1978 Session of the Superior Court of Hoke County. Defendant appealed as a matter of right. The appeal was dismissed as provided for by law when the defendant did not file or serve his proposed record on appeal within the time allowed.\nDefendant, through counsel, applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari which we allowed on 14 December 1978. Our writ of certiorari provided in part: \u201cThe defendant shall cause the record on appeal to be settled and certified as provided in Rule 11 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal being considered as taken on the date of this order.\u201d The date of the order is the 14th day of December, 1978. The record in the case sub judice was filed in this Court on 9 May 1979 without any extension of time granted by the Superior Court.\nRule 11 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in part:\n\u201cSettling The Record On Appeal; Certification\n(a) By Agreement. Within 30 days after appeal is taken, the parties may by agreement entered in the record on appeal settle a proposed record on appeal prepared by any party in accordance with Rule 9 as the record on appeal.\n(b) By Appellee\u2019s Approval of Appellant\u2019s Proposed Record on Appeal. If the record on appeal is not settled by agreement under Rule 11(a), the appellant shall, within 30 days after appeal is taken, file in the office of the clerk of superior court and serve upon all other parties a proposed record on appeal constituted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9. Within 15 days after service of the proposed record on appeal upon him an appellee may file in the office of the clerk of superior court and serve upon all other parties a notice of approval of the proposed record on appeal, or objections, amendments, or a proposed alternative record on appeal in accordance with Rule 11(c). If all appellees within the times allowed them either file notices of approval or fail to file either notices of approval or objections, amendments, or proposed alternative records on appeal, appellant\u2019s proposed record on appeal thereupon constitutes the record on appeal.\u201d\nThis Court stated in State v. Gillespie, 31 N.C. App. 520, 521, 230 S.E. 2d 154, 155 (1976), dis. rev. denied, 291 N.C. 713, 232 S.E. 2d 205 (1977):\n\u201cThe time schedules set out in the rules are designed to keep the process of perfecting an appeal to the appellate division flowing in an orderly manner. Counsel is not permitted to decide upon his own enterprise how long he will wait to take his next step in the appellate process. There are generous provisions for extensions of time by the trial court if counsel can show good cause for extension.\nThe North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. \u2018These rules govern procedure in all appeals from the courts of the trial divisions to the courts of the appellate division; . . .\u2019 App. R. 1(a).\nFor violation of the rules this appeal is subject to dismissal.\u201d\nDefendant does not explain why so much time was taken to prepare this record on appeal in violation of our order.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges VAUGHN and HILL concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ERWIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.", "Philip A. Diehl, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL OXENDINE\nNo. 7912SC428\n(Filed 16 October 1979)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 156.1\u2014 certiorari granted \u2014 filing of record on appeal not timely\nDefendant\u2019s appeal is dismissed where he did not file the record on appeal until almost five months after the Court of Appeals entered an order of cer-tiorari.\nON writ of certiorari to review proceedings before Godwin, Judge. Judgment entered in Superior Court, HOKE County.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.\nPhilip A. Diehl, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0391-01", "first_page_order": 419, "last_page_order": 421 }