State v. Ragland
State v. Ragland
Opinion of the Court
Where Kim Ragland ("defendant") substantially failed to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.
On 30 November 2017, defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of fictitious tags, speeding, resisting a public officer, two counts of possession of stolen goods, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, felony fleeing to elude arrest, felony breaking or entering, and felony larceny after breaking or entering. Following the announcement of the verdicts by the jury, defendant informed the trial court he wished to appeal. Thereafter, the trial court arrested judgment on the charges of felony fleeing to elude arrest, resisting a public officer, speeding, and possession of fictitious plates. The remaining convictions were consolidated into three judgments, and the trial court sentenced defendant to three consecutive terms of 11 to 23 months of imprisonment.
The trial court appointed the Appellate Defender to assist defendant with his appeal. However, defendant requested that the Appellate Defender withdraw as counsel and indicated he wished to represent himself. Accordingly, the Appellate Defender sought to withdraw from representation. Defendant filed the record on appeal on 7 August 2018. It was docketed on 13 August 2018.
_________________________
On 27 November 2018, the State moved to dismiss defendant's appeal. After careful review, we dismiss defendant's appeal.
Compliance with the appellate rules is mandatory, and parties who fail to comply with the rules may forfeit their right to review on the merits. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co. ,
In Dogwood , our Supreme Court identified three types of rule violations: "(1) waiver occurring at trial; (2) defects in appellate jurisdiction; and (3) violation of nonjurisdictional requirements." Dogwood ,
Defendant's appeal to this Court is non-compliant with multiple provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, and his appeal involves both nonjurisdictional defects and defects in appellate jurisdiction. We need not, however, determine whether defendant's nonjurisdictional defects are gross violations, because the defects in appellate jurisdiction mandate dismissal of his appeal.
First, defendant failed to give proper notice of appeal. Rule 4 provides that a defendant's notice of appeal in criminal cases may be taken by "(1) giving oral notice of appeal at trial, or (2) filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court and serving copies thereof upon all adverse parties within fourteen days after entry of the judgment or order[.]" N.C.R. App. P. 4(a) (2019). Failure to comply with Rule 4 deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. State v. McCoy ,
Second, defendant's appeal is also subject to dismissal because he did not include any charging instruments in the record. "[I]t is defendant's burden to produce a record establishing the jurisdiction of the court from which appeal is taken, and his failure to do so subjects t[he] appeal to dismissal." State v. Phillips ,
Third, defendant failed to include copies of any of the judgments from which he appeals. As a result of defendant's failure to include these necessary documents, we are unable to review his appeal. See State v. Harvell ,
There are numerous additional violations of the Appellate Rules. However, because of the multiple jurisdictional defects in defendant's appeal, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal and need not address the other defects. Accordingly, defendant's appeal is dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
Judges TYSON and ARROWOOD concurs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.