{
  "id": 8627224,
  "name": "STATE v. LEWIS LYNN, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lynn",
  "decision_date": "1960-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "703",
  "last_page": "704",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 703"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 919",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619526
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0761-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2579,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072763701667549
    },
    "sha256": "1fd46e2fa03bc5e3e0e71b882f833e1b15fdad2026ff8c6b3d7e7f3a478c3ea7",
    "simhash": "1:dd8edfee9a86ab0b",
    "word_count": 427
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. LEWIS LYNN, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cueiam.\n\u201c. . . the filing by the defendant appellant of his brief too late works an abandonment of the assignments of errors, except those appearing on the face of the record, which are cognizable ex mero motu.\u201d S. v. Evans, 237 N.C. 761, 75 S.E. 2d 919, and cases cited; Strong, North Carolina Index, Vol. 1, Criminal Law \u00a7 159, and oases cited.\nNo error appears on the face of the record. Indeed, the evidence set out in appellant\u2019s belated statement of case on appeal fully supports Judge Carr\u2019s findings of fact and judgment. Hence, the judgment is affirmed and defendant\u2019s appeal therefrom is dismissed.\nJudgment affirmed, appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.",
      "Walter D. Barrett for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. LEWIS LYNN, JR.\n(Filed 14 January, 1960.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 159\u2014\nThe filing of brief by appellant after the expiration of the time allowed results in an abandonment of the assignments of error except 'those appearing on the face of the record which are cognizable ex mero motu.\nAppeal by defendant from C'arr, J., October Term, 1959, of Ala-MANCE.\nOn June 15, 1959, in the Burlington Municipal Recorder\u2019s Court, defendant pleaded guilty to a warrant charging that, while living with his wife, he wilfully failed to provide adequate support for his two children, aged nine and four, a violation of G.S. 14-325. The judgment then pronounced imposed a prison sentence of twelve months, suspended for three years on condition, inter alia, that defendant pay to the clerk of said court, for the support of said children, the sum of $15.00 on Friday of each week, beginning July 17, 1959, \u201cuntil further orders of Court.\u201d\nLater, the said recorder\u2019s court and also Judge Carr, after de novo hearing on defendant\u2019s appeal as provided by G.S. 15-200.1, found, as a fact that defendant had wilfully violated said condition and ordered that defendant serve said prison sentence. Defendant excepted to the \u201cjudgment and finding of facts\u201d of Judge Carr and gave notice of appeal.\nAppellant was allowed fifteen days from October 21, 1959, to serve-statement of case on appeal but did not serve such statement until November 24, 1959. The record on appeal was docketed in this Court. Rule 28 (Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, G.S. 4A, p. 185) required that appellant\u2019s brief be filed by noon on Tuesday, December 1, 1959. On December 8, 1959, appellant having failed to file brief, the Attorney General moved that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment affirmed. Thereafter appellant filed a brief.\nAttorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.\nWalter D. Barrett for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0703-01",
  "first_page_order": 747,
  "last_page_order": 748
}