{
  "id": 8550811,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNIE RAY TATUM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tatum",
  "decision_date": "1979-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 798SC575",
  "first_page": "77",
  "last_page": "78",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 77"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.839,
    "sha256": "6f26b6193f24bbc9d99448c943d2765bd228cebb93e33ecfbefb39d2220b8583",
    "simhash": "1:a4f73e90efebb87b",
    "word_count": 482
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:31.887789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WEBB and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNIE RAY TATUM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nWe note at the outset that defendant is represented by court-appointed counsel. The Rules of Appellate Procedure, however, must be observed by attorneys who are paid at public expense as well as by those who are privately retained.\nRule 28(b)(3) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly provides that immediately following each question presented in appellant\u2019s brief there shall be\n\u201ca reference to the assignments of error and exceptions pertinent to the question, identified by their numbers and by the pages of the printed record on appeal at which they appear. 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.\u201d\nThe brief filed by appellant ignores the foregoing requirement of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.\nRule 9(b)(3)(iii) requires that the record on appeal in criminal cases shall include \u201ccopies of all warrants, informations, presentments, and indictments upon which the case has been tried in any court . . . .\u201d The record on appeal served on the District Attorney in this armed robbery case did not contain a bill of indictment. It contained only a deputy clerk\u2019s arrest warrant. The District Attorney, nevertheless, stipulated that \u201cthe foregoing has been settled as and is hereby constituted the Case on Appeal . . . .\u201d As so \u201csettled,\u201d the record on appeal was docketed in this Court without a bill of indictment. The defect in the record was not the subject of any comment in the brief of the Attorney General. If defendant was tried only on the arrest warrant, we would have to arrest judgment. N.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 22. On our own initiative this Court determined that defendant was indeed tried on a proper bill of indictment and has caused a true copy of that indictment to be filed in this Court.\nThe appeal is subject to dismissal. We have, however, considered the assignments of error defendant attempts to assert. Even if properly presented, they could not disclose prejudicial error.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges WEBB and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas F. Moffitt, for the State.",
      "Donald M. Wright, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNIE RAY TATUM\nNo. 798SC575\n(Filed 20 November 1979)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 157, 166\u2014 brief \u2014 record on appeal \u2014 omission of necessary parts\nDefendant\u2019s appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to refer to assignments of error and exceptions immediately following each question presented in his brief and for failure to include the bill of indictment in the record on appeal.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Barefoot, Judge. Judgment entered 10 April 1979 in Superior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 November 1979.\nDefendant was convicted of armed robbery and judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than fifty nor more than sixty years was entered.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas F. Moffitt, for the State.\nDonald M. Wright, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0077-01",
  "first_page_order": 105,
  "last_page_order": 106
}