{
  "id": 8625470,
  "name": "STATE v. ROBERT LEE MAIDES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Maides",
  "decision_date": "1961-03-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "224",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 N.C. 223"
    }
  ],
  "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": "94 S.E. 2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 693",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219537
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0693-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 S.E. 2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629015
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.C. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626416
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/247/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S.E. 1019",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.C. 701",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0701-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629940,
        8629958
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0648-01",
        "/nc/213/0648-02"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 288,
    "char_count": 3691,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072458664578514
    },
    "sha256": "d0766f694a695a85bf0b30f3a59a86e89e219be832feff248d39f5ef9e364582",
    "simhash": "1:ca01c1375fdb65c9",
    "word_count": 633
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:35.681015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROBERT LEE MAIDES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curta m.\nThe Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal for that there is no statement, or settlement of case on appeal, and the Court is relegated to an examination of an obvious fragmentary and selective portion of the record. However, since there is data in the record from which an appeal may be inferred, the motion will not be allowed. Nevertheless error upon the face of the record is not made to appear. Indeed where defendant enters a general appearance in court, he waives any objection predicated upon any irregularity in the warrant. S. v. Harris, 213 N.C. 648, 197 S.E. 142. See also S. v. Turner, 170 N.C. 701, 86 S.E. 1019, and also S. v. Johnson, 247 N.C. 240, 100 S.E. 2d 494.\nIn the case in hand the record shows that defendant entered plea of not guilty, and was tried and convicted in the Recorder\u2019s Court.\nMoreover, the records of the proceedings in this case are subject to the charge that, as stated in S. v. King, 222 N.C. 137, 22 S.E. 2d 241, \u201cthey are incomplete and unduly abbreviated and ciphered, a practice that should not be pursued, and is not approved in the recording of the proceedings of a court of record.\u201d See also S. v. Edmundson, 244 N.C. 693, 94 S.E. 2d 844.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curta m."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Staff Attorney Bichar\u00e1 T. Sanders for the State.",
      "Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROBERT LEE MAIDES.\n(Filed 1 March, 1961.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 147\u2014\nWhere the record is sufficient to infer an appeal from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court, the appeal will not be dismissed for absence of statement of case on appeal, but in such instance only 'the face of the record is presented for review.\n2. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 12\u2014\nA general appearance waives objections predicated upon a mere irregularity in 'the warrant. The use of abbreviations in the record of proceedings of a court of record is disapproved.\nAppeal by defendant from Morris, J., at November 18, 1960 Term, of CeaveN.\nCriminal prosecution upon warrants before Recorder\u2019s Court in Craven County upon affidavits of a State Highway Patrolman, charging defendant with operating a motor vehicle upon public highways on the 11th day of October, 1958, (1) while under the influence of intoxicating liquors (narcotic drugs) in violation of General Statutes 20-138, and (2) in a careless and reckless manner in violation of General Statutes 20-140.\nIn the Recorder\u2019s Court on 14 October 1958, defendant plead not guilty to OAWUIW and careless and reckless driving. Verdict: Guilty. Judgment: Let defendant be confined in common jail of Craven County for a period of 4 months. Suspended upon payment of a fine of $100.00 and costs, and upon the further condition that the defendant surrender his operator\u2019s license to the court to be forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles for revocation according to law.\nIt appears in the record that on 9 May 1960, upon petition of defendant for writ of recordari (erroneously designated writ of certi-orari), Judge Bundy of Third Judicial District ordered the Clerk of the Recorder\u2019s Court of Craven to transmit forthwith to the docket of the Superior Court of Craven County, all of the original papers, warrant and other records of the proceeding of a trial and conviction of defendant, dated October 14, 1958, to the end that a hearing might be had on a motion to vacate former judgment by reason of void warrant or a trial as the court may determine.\nFurthermore, the record contains this notation on minute book 0-2 \u201cWrit of certiorari \u2014 Writ denied.\u201d The minutes also contain notation that on 5 January, 1961, Chester Morris, Trial Judge, ordered that defendant be allowed to give appeal bond in the Supreme Court.\nAttorney General Bruton, Staff Attorney Bichar\u00e1 T. Sanders for the State.\nCharles L. Abernethy, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 262
}