Appellate Rule Violations
In General
"Rules of procedure are necessary . . . in order to enable the courts properly to discharge their dut[y]' of resolving disputes. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 193, 657 S.E.2d 361, 362 (2008) (quoting Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 790, 156 S.E. 126, 127 (1930)). "Compliance with the rules, therefore, is mandatory.'' Id. at 194, 657 S.E.2d at 362.
"[N]oncompliance with the appellate rules does not, ipso facto, mandate dismissal of an appeal.'' Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 194, 657 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2008).
"[D]efault under the appellate rules arises primarily from the existence of one or more of the following circumstances:
Waiver
"[W]aiver . . . arises out of a party's failure to properly preserve an issue for appellate review. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 194-95, 657 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2008). "[A] party's failure to properly preserve an issue for appellate review ordinarily justifies the appellate court's refusal to consider the issue on appeal.'' Id. at 195-96, 657 S.E.2d at 364.
However, "plain error review is available in criminal appeals, for challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary issues, . . . only in truly exceptional cases when absent the error the jury probably would have reached a different verdict. ''Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co. , 362 N.C. 191, 196, 657 S.E.2d 361, 364 (2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
"Aside from the possibility of plain error review in criminal appeals, Rule 2 permits the appellate courts to excuse a party's default in both civil and criminal appeals when necessary to 'prevent manifest injustice to a party' or to 'expedite decision in the public interes.'''' Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 196, 657 S.E.2d 361, 364 (2008) (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 2).
Jurisdictional Default
"[A] default precluding appellate review on the merits necessarily arises when the appealing party fails to complete all of the steps necessary to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. It is axiomatic that courts of law must have their power properly invoked by an interested party. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 197, 657 S.E.2d 361, 364 (2008).
"A jurisdictional default . . . precludes the appellate court from acting in any manner other than to dismiss the appeal. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 197, 657 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008).
"[I]n the absence of jurisdiction, the appellate courts lack authority to consider whether the circumstances of a purported appeal justify application of Rule 2.... Accordingly, Rule 2 may not be used to reach the merits of an appeal in the event of a jurisdictional default.'' Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 198, 657 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008).
Non-Jurisdictional Default
"The final principal category of default involves a party's failure to comply with one or more of the nonjurisdictional requisites prescribed by the appellate rules. This comprehensive set of nonjurisdictional requirements is designed primarily to keep the appellate process flowing in an orderly manner.'' Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 198, 657 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008) (quotation marks omitted).
"Noncompliance with , while perhaps indicative of inartful appellate advocacy, does not ordinarily give rise to the harms associated with review of unpreserved issues or lack of jurisdiction. And, notably, the appellate court faced with a default of this nature possesses discretion in fashioning a remedy to encourage better compliance with the rules.'' Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 198, 657 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008).
"[A] party's failure to comply with nonjurisdictional rule requirements normally should not lead to dismissal of the appeal. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 198, 657 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008).
"[W]hen a party fails to comply with one or more nonjurisdictional appellate rules, the court should first determine whether the noncompliance is substantial or gross under Rules 25 and 34. If it so concludes, it should then determine which, if any, sanction under Rule 34(b) should be imposed. Finally, if the court concludes that dismissal is the appropriate sanction, it may then consider whether the circumstances of the case justify invoking Rule 2 to reach the merits of the appeal. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 201, 657 S.E.2d 361, 367 (2008).