 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Poor8/16/2005
osecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.
State v. Bell, 164 N.C. App. 83, 88, 594 S.E.2d 824, 827 (2004) (citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 23 L.Ed. 2d 656, 664-65 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 104 L.Ed. 2d 865 (1989)). However, defendant fails to relate this cited case to her assignment of error or to any supporting argument. Defendant does not argue that she was prosecuted a second time for the same offense after either an acquittal or a conviction. Nor does she argue that she was subjected to multiple punishments for the same offense. Thus, defendant's appeal is not in accordance with Rule 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6); see also Brown v. Boney, 41 N.C. App. 636, 647, 255 S.E.2d 784, 791 (finding the plaintiff in violation of Rule 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure where the plaintiff "made no attempt to relate the cases cited to his one assignment of error or to any argument advanced in support thereof"), disc. review denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E.2d 910 (1979).
Defendant merely asserts that the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated because she "was forced to defend herself at the same time on two different charges of the same driving while [impaired] offense." However, defendant does not present any authority to support this contention, thereby again violating N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
Defendant has not only failed "to present the arguments and authorities upon which rel in support of respective position thereon[,]" but she has also failed "to define clearly the questions presented" to our Court. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(a). Since " t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal for an appellant[,]" Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005), we dismiss defendant's appeal.
Dismissed.
Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|