Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. King

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

April 21, 2015

STATE OF MAINE
v.
SANFORD R. KING III

Submitted on Briefs: February 26, 2015.

On the briefs:

Sanford R. King III, appellant pro se.

Kathryn Loftus Slattery, District Attorney, and Anne Marie Pazar, Esq., contract brief writer, Prosecutorial District # 1, Alfred, for appellee State of Maine.

Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.

OPINION

Page 665

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Sanford R. King III appeals from a judgment of conviction of unlawful possession of scheduled drugs (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(1)(F) (2014), and an order of criminal forfeiture, 15 M.R.S. § 5826 (2014), entered by the trial court ( Foster, J.) after a bench trial. Because King did not submit a transcript of the trial and failed to include mandatory contents in the appendix, we dismiss the appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] In January 2014, the State filed a complaint against King in York County, charging him with unlawful possession of scheduled drugs (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(1)(D) (2014); unlawful possession of scheduled drugs (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(1)(F); and cultivating marijuana (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. § 1117(1)(B)(4) (2014). The complaint also petitioned for the criminal forfeiture of a firearm pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 5826. The court scheduled a bench trial for May 6, 2014. The trial was not held on that date, but the record does not reveal what occurred or otherwise indicate why the trial date was continued. Following a bench trial on July 8, 2014, the court entered a judgment dismissing the Class D possession and Class E cultivation charges, but convicting King of the Class E possession charge and ordering him to forfeit his firearm to the State. The court sentenced King to ninety-six hours in county jail and ordered him to pay a thirty-dollar fine.

[¶3] King filed a notice of appeal, but did not request production of a transcript of the trial or submit a transcript substitute. See M.R. App. P. 2(a)(1), 5(b)(1), (d), (f). Although King filed an appendix with his brief, that appendix contains neither a docket record of the proceedings nor the orders by which the court continued the date for trial. See M.R. App. P. 8(g)(2)-(3).

II. DISCUSSION

[¶4] The appellant bears the burden of persuasion on appeal and is responsible for providing the reviewing court with a record that is sufficient to allow fair consideration of the issues ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.