Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA06-1066 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 June 2007 DONALD SIGMON, PLAINTIFF v. PRESTON HOFFMAN, DEFENDANT. Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 15 May 2006 by Judge Robert M. Brady in Burke County Superior Court. of Appeals 8 May 2007. No brief for plaintiff-appellee. Preston Hoffman, defendant-appellant, Pro-Se. WYNN, Judge. We must dismiss this appeal by Defendant because he failed to comply with our "mandatory" Rules of North Carolina Appellate Procedure.1 We recognize that dismissal is but one sanction for Heard in the Court Burke County No. 05 CVM 1666 06 CVD 87

violation, but dismissal is appropriate in this case based on the numerous violations contained in Defendant's brief. State v. Hart, 361 N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2007)(446A06). Plaintiff Donald Lee Sigmon entered into a contract to sell Defendant Preston Hoffman a 1995 Ford tractor for $10,000.00. N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Viar, 359 N.C. 400, 401, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360 (2005).
1

-2Defendant paid $6,000.00, signed the bill of sale, agreed to pay the remaining $4,000.00 within one year, and took possession of the tractor. When Defendant failed to pay the remaining $4,000.00

balance, Plaintiff filed an action to recover the delinquent debt.2 The trial court found that there was a valid contract and ordered Defendant to pay the balance of the contract in the amount of $4,000.00 plus interest and costs. Defendant appeals.

On appeal, Defendant violated several Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, Defendant's brief failed to include appropriate

assignments of error. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (providing that assignments of error "shall be stated at the conclusion of the record on appeal, in short form without argument, and shall be separately numbered" and should generally "be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned."). Second, presented. Defendant's See N.C. R. brief App. did P. not contain any questions that an

28(b)(2)

(stating

appellant's brief "shall contain . . . [a] statement of the questions presented for review."). Third, Defendant's brief failed to include a concise

procedural history of the case, a statement of the grounds for appellate review, and a full and complete statement of the facts. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(3)-(5) (requiring the inclusion of all three in an appellant's brief). The action filed in district court was an appeal from the magistrate's court decision filed 17 January 2006. However, the magistrate's decision is not a part of the record on the appeal.
2

-3Finally, Defendant's brief failed to include an argument or any authority in support of his appeal. See N.C. R. App. P.

28(b)(6) (providing that the argument in an appellant's brief "shall contain a concise statement of the applicable standard(s) of review for each question presented, . . . [and] citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies."). Because Defendant's brief simply contained a list of twenty items, the format and substance of which did not comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal. Hart, 361 N.C. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___.

Dismissed. Judges TYSON and CALABRIA concur. Report per Rule 30(e).



Download 06-1066-5.pdf

South Carolina Law