Opinion
No. 8030SC319
Filed 16 September 1980
Criminal Law 161 — necessity for exceptions and assignments of error Defendant violated App. R. 10(b) and (c) by failing to set forth any exceptions following the judicial action of which he complains and by failing to base his assignments of error on proper exceptions.
APPEAL by defendant from Friday, Judge. Judgment entered 9 November 1979 in Superior Court, HAYWOOD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals at Waynesville on 27 August 1980.
Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas F. Moffitt, for the State.
John I. Jay for defendant appellant.
Defendant has violated App. R. 10(b) and (c) by failing to set forth any exceptions following the judicial action of which he complains and by failing to base his assignments of error on proper exceptions. Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Appellate Rules are deemed abandoned. The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C. 231, 258 S.E.2d 357 (1979); State v. Brown, 42 N.C. App. 724, 257 S.E.2d 668 (1979), disc. rev. denied, 299 N.C. 123 (1980).
We have carefully examined the record on appeal in light of the provisions of Appellate Rule 2, which permits this Court on its own initiative to vary or waive the rules to prevent manifest injustice. We find the State's evidence of the defendant's guilt to be substantial, and we find waiver of the rules in this case is not warranted.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is
Dismissed.
Judges CLARK and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.