Opinion
No. COA04-687
Filed 15 February 2005 This case not for publication
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 November 2003 by Judge Timothy S. Kincaid in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January 2005.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Deputy Attorney General Barry Bloch for the State.
William B. Gibson, for defendant.
Mecklenburg County, No. 03 CRS 52396.
Defendant (Robert Foster) appeals from conviction and judgment after a plenary hearing on contempt before the superior court. The conduct giving rise to the show cause order originated before the district court. After defendant's appeal to the superior court for trial de novo, judgment was entered which gives rise to the present appeal. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the district court failed to follow the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 5A-13. Specifically, defendant contends that the district court's failure to "immediately" notify him of its show cause order requires this Court to reverse or vacate his conviction for a variety of reasons. We disagree. "[T]o preserve a question for appellate review, a [defendant] must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the [defendant] desired the court to make. . . ." N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1). "It is also necessary for the [defendant] to obtain a ruling upon the party's request, objection or motion." Id.; see Wood v. Weldon, 160 N.C. App. 697, 699, 586 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2003) (holding that "a contention not raised and argued in the trial court may not be raised and argued for the first time in the appellate court"). As the defendant did not present this issue to the trial court for a ruling, he has waived appellate review as to this issue. Moreover, even assuming arguendo the issue was properly before this Court, we are unpersuaded that the trial court committed any error requiring defendant's conviction to be reversed or otherwise set aside. This assignment of error is overruled.
Defendant next argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the superior court's conclusion of law that he was guilty of criminal contempt. We dismiss this assignment of error.
While defendant made a motion to dismiss at the close of the presentation of evidence by the State prosecutor, he failed to renew the motion at the close of all the evidence. Consequently, defendant has not preserved this argument for appeal. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(3) ("[I]f a defendant fails to move to dismiss . . . at the close of all the evidence, he may not challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the crime charged."); State v. Spaugh, 321 N.C. 550, 552, 364 S.E.2d 368, 370 (1988) (holding that where counsel for the defendant failed to renew his motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence, he was precluded from attacking the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal). This assignment of error is dismissed.
Affirm.
Judges McCULLOUGH and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).