State v. Dominguez

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Dominguez

796 S.E.2d 838, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 162, 2017 WL 900044

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 7, 2017

DocketNo. COA16-919

StatusPublished

This text of 796 S.E.2d 838 (State v. Dominguez) 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. Dominguez, 796 S.E.2d 838, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 162, 2017 WL 900044 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

CALABRIA, Judge.

Jose Luis Dominguez ("defendant") appeals from an order denying his motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-269 (2015). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's order.

On 10 August 2006, defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and indecent liberties. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 288 to 355 and 19 to 23 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, and this Court found no error. State v. Dominguez , 186 N.C. App. 305, 650 S.E.2d 675 (2007) (unpublished).

On 9 May 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. The court denied the motion by written order entered 8 June 2016. Defendant filed written notice of appeal on 16 June 2016.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant states that she 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 documents 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 issue of arguable merit appears therefrom. We are unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that defendant's appeal therefrom is wholly frivolous. As a result, the trial court's order is affirmed.

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

CALABRIA, Judge.

Jose Luis Dominguez ("defendant") appeals from an order denying his motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-269 (2015). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's order.

On 10 August 2006, defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and indecent liberties. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 288 to 355 and 19 to 23 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, and this Court found no error. State v. Dominguez , 186 N.C. App. 305, 650 S.E.2d 675 (2007) (unpublished).

On 9 May 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. The court denied the motion by written order entered 8 June 2016. Defendant filed written notice of appeal on 16 June 2016.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant states that she 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 documents 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 issue of arguable merit appears therefrom. We are unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that defendant's appeal therefrom is wholly frivolous. As a result, the trial court's order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

796 S.E.2d 838, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 162, 2017 WL 900044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dominguez-ncctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack