State v. Searls

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Searls

795 S.E.2d 158, 2017 WL 164472, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 17

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 17, 2017

DocketNo. COA16-676

StatusPublished

This text of 795 S.E.2d 158 (State v. Searls) 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. Searls, 795 S.E.2d 158, 2017 WL 164472, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 17 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

DILLON, Judge.

Anthony Searls ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed handgun. The evidence at trial established that in November 2013, a police officer stopped a car that Defendant was driving because the car's license plate had been revoked. Defendant gave consent to the officer to search the car, and the officer discovered a handgun concealed under the driver's seat. Defendant did not have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Following his conviction, Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

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 she 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 his own written arguments.

In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therein. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we hold the Defendant received a fair trial, free from error.

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.

Anthony Searls ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed handgun. The evidence at trial established that in November 2013, a police officer stopped a car that Defendant was driving because the car's license plate had been revoked. Defendant gave consent to the officer to search the car, and the officer discovered a handgun concealed under the driver's seat. Defendant did not have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Following his conviction, Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

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 she 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 his own written arguments.

In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therein. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we hold the Defendant received a fair trial, free from error.

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 158, 2017 WL 164472, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-searls-ncctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack