State v. Borg

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Borg

289 S.E.2d 587, 56 N.C. App. 747, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2448

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 6, 1982

DocketNo. 8112SC791

StatusPublished

This text of 289 S.E.2d 587 (State v. Borg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Borg, 289 S.E.2d 587, 56 N.C. App. 747, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2448 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Chief Judge.

Counsel for defendant concedes that he finds no prejudicial error in defendant’s trial but requests this Court to examine the record for error. Because of the position of the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), reh. den. 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), we have carefully reviewed the entire record of the defendant’s trial to determine whether the record contains anything which “might arguably support the appeal” and whether the “case is wholly frivolous”. In a dissent, in which Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan joined, Mr. Justice Stewart most aptly pointed out that if the record did in fact present any such arguable issues, the appeal would not be frivolous and counsel certainly would not have filed a brief in which he took the position that the appeal is without merit.

A careful review of all proceedings below convinces us that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error. The appeal is wholly frivolous and totally without merit.

[748]*748No error.

Judges Vaughn and Martin (Harry C.) concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORRIS, Chief Judge.

Counsel for defendant concedes that he finds no prejudicial error in defendant’s trial but requests this Court to examine the record for error. Because of the position of the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), reh. den. 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), we have carefully reviewed the entire record of the defendant’s trial to determine whether the record contains anything which “might arguably support the appeal” and whether the “case is wholly frivolous”. In a dissent, in which Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan joined, Mr. Justice Stewart most aptly pointed out that if the record did in fact present any such arguable issues, the appeal would not be frivolous and counsel certainly would not have filed a brief in which he took the position that the appeal is without merit.

A careful review of all proceedings below convinces us that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error. The appeal is wholly frivolous and totally without merit.

[748]*748No error.

Judges Vaughn and Martin (Harry C.) concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 S.E.2d 587, 56 N.C. App. 747, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-borg-ncctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack