Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help

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.