State of Maine v. Bruce Ross
Case Date: 01/30/2004
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2004 ME 12
|
Download PDF Back to Opinions Page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2004 ME 12 Docket: Oxf-03-492 Submitted on Briefs: January 22, 2004 Decided: January 30, 2004
Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
BRUCE ROSS
PER CURIAM Bruce Ross appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Rumford, McElwee, J.) convicting him of assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207(1)(A) (Supp. 2003). We dismiss Ross's appeal for his failure to file an appendix in accordance with M.R. App. P. 8(g). Specifically, to the extent Ross is appealing from the trial court's grant of a motion to amend the complaint, Ross has failed to include that ruling as required by Rule 8(g)(3), and has also failed to include the criminal complaint as required by Rule 8(g)(4); nor does the appendix include the docket entries, the judgment, or the complaint on the second assault charge, despite the mandate of Rule 8(g)(2-4).[1] The entry is:
Appeal dismissed.
Attorneys for State:
Norman R. Crotteau, District Attorney Joseph M. O'Connor, Asst. Dist. Atty. P O Box 179 South Paris, ME 04281
Attorney for defendant:
Ron E. Hoffman, Esq. 24 Congress Street Rumford, ME 04276
[1] We note that were we to ignore the deficiencies in the appendix filed by Ross, Ross has failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality we attribute to statutory enactment. See Town of Baldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52, ¶ 9, 794 A.2d 62, 66. |