State v. Mack

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Mack

608 S.E.2d 416, 168 N.C. App. 597, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 15, 2005

DocketNo. COA04-143

StatusPublished

This text of 608 S.E.2d 416 (State v. Mack) 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. Mack, 608 S.E.2d 416, 168 N.C. App. 597, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 380 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.

Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of trafficking in at least twenty-eight grams but less than 200 grams of cocaine by possession, and was sentenced under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(3)(a) (2003) to an active prison term of thirty-five to forty-two months. He filed timely notice of appeal from the judgment.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief. He asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has compliedwith the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (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 necessary documents. Although defendant has filed pro se arguments with this Court, the issues raised by defendant fall outside his limited right of appeal from a guilty plea under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a1), (a2) and (e) (2003). Accordingly, we dismiss defendant's pro se claims without prejudice to his right to file a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court.

As mandated by Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom and whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial errors and have found none.

No error.

Judges CALABRIA and LEVINSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

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

TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.

Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of trafficking in at least twenty-eight grams but less than 200 grams of cocaine by possession, and was sentenced under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(3)(a) (2003) to an active prison term of thirty-five to forty-two months. He filed timely notice of appeal from the judgment.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief. He asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has compliedwith the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (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 necessary documents. Although defendant has filed pro se arguments with this Court, the issues raised by defendant fall outside his limited right of appeal from a guilty plea under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a1), (a2) and (e) (2003). Accordingly, we dismiss defendant's pro se claims without prejudice to his right to file a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court.

As mandated by Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom and whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial errors and have found none.

No error.

Judges CALABRIA and LEVINSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 S.E.2d 416, 168 N.C. App. 597, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mack-ncctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack