State v. Comer Miles Myers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2021-NCCOA-516 No. COA20-720 Filed 21 September 2021 Rutherford County, No. 18 CRS 51344 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. COMER MILES MYERS, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 3 October 2019 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr., in Rutherford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 2021. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General James R. Baker, for the State. Guy J. Loranger for Defendant-Appellant. INMAN, Judge. ¶1 Comer Miles Myers (“Defendant”) filed written notice of appeal from a criminal judgment entered 3 October 2019 following a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving while impaired. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal concerns attorney’s fees entered by civil judgments on 8 May 2019 and 28 October 2019. STATE V. MYERS 2021-NCCOA-516 Opinion of the Court Defendant failed to provide timely written notice of appeal from the civil ¶2 judgments, from which he now appeals, as required by our caselaw and appellate rules. State v. Smith, 188 N.C. App. 842, 845-46, 656 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2008) (categorizing judgments for attorney’s fees as civil judgments and requiring compliance with North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a) when appealing from them) (citation omitted); N.C. R. App. P. 3(a), (c) (2021) (compelling written notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of civil judgment); see also Bailey v. State, 353 N.C. 142, 156, 540 S.E.2d 313, 322 (2000) (“The provisions of Rule 3 are jurisdictional, and failure to follow the rule’s prerequisites mandates dismissal of an appeal.” (citation omitted)). ¶3 Defendant seeks review via a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Because Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his appeal is meritorious, in our discretion we deny the petition and dismiss Defendant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. Judges DILLON and CARPENTER concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
