State v. Carlton

796 S.E.2d 837, 252 N.C. App. 265, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 164, 2017 WL 899987
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 7, 2017
DocketNo. COA16-880
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 796 S.E.2d 837 (State v. Carlton) 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. Carlton, 796 S.E.2d 837, 252 N.C. App. 265, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 164, 2017 WL 899987 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

CALABRIA, Judge.

Brandon Christopher Carlton ("defendant") appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to an Alford plea. We affirm.

On 9 March 2016, defendant entered an Alford plea to misdemeanor assault on a government official, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(4) (2015).1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 27 L.Ed. 2d 162 (1970). The trial court sentenced defendant, as a prior conviction level II, to a suspended term of 75 days in county jail plus 24 months of supervised probation. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel shows to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time for him to do so has expired.

In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON concur.

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

Related

State v. Edwards
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2022
State v. Tripp
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2020
Jonna v. Yaramada
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2020
Griffin v. Absolute Fire Control
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
796 S.E.2d 837, 252 N.C. App. 265, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 164, 2017 WL 899987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carlton-ncctapp-2017.