Legal Opinion

State v. Escobar

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 2007No. COA07-397PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

A trial court is not required to recite evidentiary facts in its findings of fact, but is required to make “specific findings on the ultimate facts established by the evidence.” 2 Here, a bonding company argues that the trial court erred because it failed to make findings of fact regarding its efforts to locate defendant after he failed to appear at a scheduled court appearance. Because the trial court was not required to make findings of fact specifying the tasks completed by the bonding company, we affirm.

Following Defendant Miguel Angel Gonzalez Escobar’s arrest on several…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. State v. CheekSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  3. State v. VikreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. State v. CoronelCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  5. State v. RakinaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. NavarroCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  2. State v. HollarsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. State v. MayeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2024
  4. State v. MohammedCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API