State v. Woodward

Decision Date30 March 1978
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Harvey WOODWARD.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

William P. Donahue, Dist. Atty., Eric Cote (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., Alfred, for plaintiff.

Barrett & McNeill Professional Association by John T. Barrett (orally), Durham, N. H., Bruce A. Whitney, South Berwick, John G. Richardson, Rochester, N. H., for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ.

ARCHIBALD, Justice.

On April 19, 1977, defendant, of Durham, New Hampshire, was sentenced in the Superior Court in York County to pay a fine of $650.00 on his plea of "nolo contendere" to a "Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint" charging a violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1652(2)(B), namely: "Operating Over Tandem Axle (weight)" by 36%. Section 1654 specifies a fine of $650.00 for this overweight percentage.

On May 2, 1977, a "Notice of Appeal," dated April 28, 1977, was filed, signed only by a non-resident attorney. The record does not disclose any motion by a resident attorney that the non-resident be permitted to practice in this matter.

The foregoing is not in compliance with Rule 61(a), M.R.Crim.P. 1

We have the power, even on judicial notice alone (since the State does not raise the point in its brief), to act on matters so vital to the public interest and which affect our jurisdiction. Bennie v. Triangle Ranch Co., 73 Colo. 586, 216 P. 718 (1923); State ex rel. Mather v. Carnes, Mo.App., 551 S.W.2d 272, 288 (1977).

Other jurisdictions agree, on facts similar to those before us, that pleadings signed only by non-resident attorneys are without legal efficacy. See Burger v. Burgess, 234 Ga. 388, 216 S.E.2d 294 (1975); Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921 (1952); Northwest Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Averill, 149 Or. 672, 42 P.2d 747 (1935); In re Nelson's Estate, 101 Or. 14, 198 P. 892 (1921); Anderson v. Coolin, 27 Idaho, 334, 149 P. 286 (1915).

Since the notice of appeal was not signed either by the defendant or by Maine counsel, it becomes a nullity. Only where there has been a compliance with Rule 61(a), M.R.Crim.P., may a non-member of the Maine Bar participate in proceedings in the Maine courts, and even then all papers filed with the court must be signed by Maine counsel. Our jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal is premised on proper filing of a notice of appeal signed by the appellant or appellant's attorney. Rule 37(b), M.R.Crim.P. That basic requirement was ignored in this case. We lack jurisdiction to decide this appeal. 2

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

DELAHANTY, J., did not sit.

1 "Any member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state may at the discretion of the court, on motion by a member of the bar of this state who is actively associated with him in a particular action, be permitted to practice in that action. The court may at any time for good cause revoke such permission without hearing. An attorney so permitted to practice in a particular action shall at all times have associated with him in such action a member of the bar of this state, upon whom all process, notices and other papers shall be served and who shall sign all papers filed with the court and whose attendance at any proceeding may be required by the court."

2 Appellant has argued that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Town of South Berwick Planning Bd. v. Maineland, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1980
    ...it was signed by a New Hampshire lawyer who was not authorized to practice law in Maine. 3 See Rule 89(b), M.R.Civ.P.; State v. Woodward, Me., 383 A.2d 661 (1978). On July 9, 1979, plaintiff filed in the Superior Court a new notice of appeal, this time signed by a lawyer authorized to pract......
  • State v. Dodge
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 1979
    ...our review of the issues attempted to be raised for appellate review. See State v. Lang, Me., 396 A.2d 1012 (1979); State v. Woodward, Me., 383 A.2d 661, 663 n. 2 (1978). In any event, we see no error in the trial justice's ruling. The fact (which we assume without having seen the civil com......
  • State v. Lang
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 26 Enero 1979
    ...similar. Defendant's bald factual assertions in his brief are not appropriate substitutes for the record on appeal. State v. Woodward, Me., 383 A.2d 661, 663 n.2 (1978). We have recently held that "(w)hen an inadequate record is presented to the Law Court to support an appeal, such appeal m......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT