Order Settling the Record on Appeal for
Theodore Meade Kimble
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
123 WEST MAIN STREET
DURHAM, NC 27701
MALCOLM RAY HUNTER, JR.
November 18, 1999
The Honorable Peter M. McHugh
Superior Court Judge
Reidsville, North Carolina 27320
Re: State v. Theodore Mead Kimble
97 CrS 39581; 98 CrS 23486, 23656; 99 CrS 23241-23248
Dear Judge McHugh:
Pursuant to Appellate Rules 11(c), I am enclosing a proposed Order
Settling the Record on Appeal in the above cases. If you agree,
please date, execute and return it to me in the enclosed,
self-addressed, stamped envelope. I will see to it that it is filed
in the Court of Appeals with the settled record and that a copy is
served on Assistant District Attorney Richard Panosh.
Danielle M. Carman
Assistant Appellate Defender
cc: Richard E. Panosh, Assistant District Attorney
Theodore Mead Kimble
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
97 CrS 39581; 98 CrS 23486, 23656;
99 CrS 23241-23248
THEODORE MEAD KIMBLE
SETTLING RECORD ON APPEAL
coining on before the undersigned pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure upon written request by Danielle M.
Carman, Assistant Appellate Defender, to settle the record on appeal
in the above-captioned cases.
On November 5, 1999, Assistant District Attorney Richard E. Panosh
filed written objections to a portion of defendant's proposed record
on appeal that moved to include in the record a statement concerning
the conditions of defendant's confinement during the time period
between entry of his guilty and Alford pleas, and his pro se motion
to withdraw those pleas. On November 8, 1999, defendant requested
that the record be settled by judicial order.
In accordance with Appellate Rule 11(c), this Court notified both
parties setting a time and place for a hearing to settle the record
on appeal. By stipulation, the parties agreed to conduct the hearing
by telephone conference call on November 18, 1999.
This Court finds that the first sentence of defendant's proposed
statement was before it at the time defendant moved to withdraw his
pleas, and is a proper matter to be included in the record on appeal
if the State stipulates to its inclusion. This Court further finds
that Assistant District Attorney Panosh has stipulated to inclusion
of that first sentence. However, this Court finds that the remainder
of defendant's proposed statement is not of record and not a proper
matter for inclusion in the record on appeal:
THEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the first sentence of defendant's
proposed stipulation shall be included in the record on appeal, and
defendant's motion to include that matter is HEREBY GRANTED. It is
further ORDERED that the remainder of defendant's proposed statement
is not to be included in the settled record on appeal, and
defendant's motion to include this matter is HEREBY DENIED.
This the _____ day of November, 1999.
THE HONORABLE PETER M. McHUGH