State v. Poteat

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Poteat

795 S.E.2d 155, 2017 WL 163784, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 17, 2017

DocketNo. COA16-535

StatusPublished

This text of 795 S.E.2d 155 (State v. Poteat) 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. Poteat, 795 S.E.2d 155, 2017 WL 163784, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 5 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

DILLON, Judge.

On 16 September 2015, Jonathan Daniel Poteat ("Defendant") was convicted by a jury of selling heroin, possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin, maintaining a dwelling place for keeping or selling a controlled substance, conspiracy to sell or deliver heroin, possession of drug paraphernalia, and delivery of heroin. Defendant then pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court arrested judgment on the charge of delivery of heroin. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 114 to 149 and 99 to 131 months of imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been 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 has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (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 for him to do so.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders and Kinch , we have fully examined the record to determine whether there are any issues of arguable merit. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge CALABRIA concur.

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

DILLON, Judge.

On 16 September 2015, Jonathan Daniel Poteat ("Defendant") was convicted by a jury of selling heroin, possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin, maintaining a dwelling place for keeping or selling a controlled substance, conspiracy to sell or deliver heroin, possession of drug paraphernalia, and delivery of heroin. Defendant then pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court arrested judgment on the charge of delivery of heroin. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 114 to 149 and 99 to 131 months of imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been 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 has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (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 for him to do so.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders and Kinch , we have fully examined the record to determine whether there are any issues of arguable merit. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge CALABRIA concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 S.E.2d 155, 2017 WL 163784, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-poteat-ncctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack