From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. McBride

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1996
344 N.C. 623 (N.C. 1996)

Summary

affirming per curiam an opinion holding that the notice of appeal must be from the final judgment rather than from the order denying a suppression motion

Summary of this case from State v. Mullinax

Opinion

No. 524PA95

Filed 11 October 1996

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 120 N.C. App. 623, 463 S.E.2d 403 (1995), dismissing defendant's appeal, after pleas of guilty and entry of judgments thereon on 31 May 1994 by Grant (Cy A., Sr.), J., to review an order denying a motion to suppress evidence entered by Cobb, J., on 9 May 1994 in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Calendared for argument in the Supreme Court 11 September 1996; determined on the briefs without oral argument.

Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Simon Frier Alston, Associate Attorney General, for the State.

Judith T. Naef for defendant-appellant.


AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. McBride

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1996
344 N.C. 623 (N.C. 1996)

affirming per curiam an opinion holding that the notice of appeal must be from the final judgment rather than from the order denying a suppression motion

Summary of this case from State v. Mullinax
Case details for

State v. McBride

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED DOUGLAS McBRIDE

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 1996

Citations

344 N.C. 623 (N.C. 1996)
476 S.E.2d 106

Citing Cases

State v. San

However, a defendant must (1) notify the prosecutor and the trial court of his intention to appeal during…

State v. Pimental

In North Carolina, a defendant's right to appeal in a criminal proceeding is purely a creation of state…