An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-1017
Filed 2 July 2025
Iredell County, Nos. 23CRS314427-480, 23CRS314428-480, 24CRS216718-480, 24CRS216754-480
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JOSEPH ANTHONY SMITH, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 30 April 2024 by Judge Clifton H.
Smith in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 2025.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Farrah R. Raja, for the State.
Phoebe W. Dee, for Defendant-Appellant.
CARPENTER, Judge.
Joseph Anthony Smith (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment entered upon his
guilty plea to, in relevant part, two counts of possession of methamphetamine. On
appeal, Defendant’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief because she was unable
to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for direct
relief on appeal. Under Anders and Kinch, Defendant’s appellate counsel requests STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
this Court conduct an independent review of the record for prejudicial error. After
careful review, we discern no non-frivolous issues and dismiss Defendant’s appeal.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
On 2 August 2023, following a traffic stop and subsequent searches of
Defendant’s person and vehicle, an Iredell County grand jury indicted Defendant for
one count each of: possession of methamphetamine; maintaining a vehicle for the
keeping or selling of controlled substances; possession of a weapon of mass
destruction; and possession of a firearm by a felon.
On 23 January 2024, Defendant was released on bond. That same day,
deputies from the Iredell County Sheriff’s Department were informed that a
suspected arsonist was sighted driving a pickup truck owned by Defendant. Based
on this information, deputies travelled to Defendant’s home to locate and investigate
the suspected arsonist. Upon arrival at Defendant’s home, deputies observed
Defendant’s pickup truck parked in the driveway and Defendant standing nearby.
Deputies approached Defendant and spoke with him. During the conversation,
deputies observed an empty holster around Defendant’s waistband and a bolt action
rifle on the hood of the pickup truck. Deputies conducted a probable cause search of
Defendant’s person and discovered methamphetamine in his pocket. Initially,
Defendant denied that the suspected arsonist was in his home. After further
questioning, however, Defendant admitted that the suspected arsonist was asleep
inside Defendant’s home.
-2- STATE V. SMITH
On 6 March 2024, an Iredell County grand jury indicted Defendant (the
“Indictment”) for one count each of: possession of methamphetamine; possession of
drug paraphernalia; harboring a fugitive; and possession of a firearm by a felon. On
30 April 2024, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a
felon and two counts of possession of methamphetamine.
The trial court sentenced Defendant to: twelve months minimum and twenty-
four months maximum in the Department of Adult Corrections for possession of a
firearm by a felon; six months minimum to seventeen months maximum in the
Department of Adult Corrections for possession of methamphetamine, suspended for
eighteen months of supervised probation; twelve months minimum and twenty-four
months maximum in the Department of Adult Corrections for possession of a firearm
by a felon, suspended for eighteen months of supervised probation; and six months
minimum and seventeen months maximum in the Department of Adult Corrections
for possession of methamphetamine, suspended for eighteen months of supervised
probation. On 1 May 2024, Defendant filed written notice of appeal.
II. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(4) and 15A-
1444(a2) (2023).
III. Anders Brief
Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99,
-3- STATE V. SMITH
331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Defendant’s appellate counsel complied with the
requirements of Anders and Kinch by: (1) conducting a thorough review of the record
and relevant law; (2) advising Defendant of his right to file his own supplemental
arguments; and (3) providing Defendant with the Anders brief, record on appeal, trial
transcript, and the mailing address of this Court. Defendant did not file any written
argument on his own behalf, and a reasonable time to do so has passed. Defendant’s
appellate counsel directs our attention to one potential issue on appeal: whether the
trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant’s charge of possession of
methamphetamine where the Indictment incorrectly listed methamphetamine as a
Schedule I controlled substance.
Under Anders and Kinch, this Court must conduct “a full examination of all
the proceedings[,]” which includes a “review [of] the legal points appearing in the
record, transcript, and briefs, not for the purpose of determining their merits (if any)
but to determine whether they are wholly frivolous.” Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102–03, 331
S.E.2d at 667 (citation omitted).
When a defendant has pleaded guilty, the scope of Anders review is limited by
section 15A-1444. See State v. Hamby, 129 N.C. App. 366, 368–70, 499 S.E.2d 195,
195–97 (1998); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444 (2023). Specifically, a defendant’s right of
appeal after pleading guilty is limited to whether: certain issues exist pertaining to
his sentence, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a1), (a2); the trial court improperly
denied his motion to suppress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1444(e), 15A-979(b) (2023);
-4- STATE V. SMITH
and the trial court improperly denied his motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no
contest, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(e). Nevertheless, because “[t]he issue of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time” including “for the first time on
appeal[,]” this Court may review the issue of whether an indictment was fatally
defective. State v. Frink, 177 N.C. App. 144, 147, 627 S.E.2d 472, 473 (2006).
Jurisdictional concerns arise “only when [an indictment] wholly fails to charge
a crime against the laws or people of this State.” State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183,
184–85, 900 S.E.2d 802, 804–805 (2024) (explaining that North Carolina has
departed from “strict common law pleading requirements for criminal indictments”).
Conversely, indictments “that contain non-jurisdictional deficiencies will not be
quashed or cast aside by reason of any informality when they express the crime
charged in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner such that the defendant has
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-1017
Filed 2 July 2025
Iredell County, Nos. 23CRS314427-480, 23CRS314428-480, 24CRS216718-480, 24CRS216754-480
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JOSEPH ANTHONY SMITH, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 30 April 2024 by Judge Clifton H.
Smith in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 2025.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Farrah R. Raja, for the State.
Phoebe W. Dee, for Defendant-Appellant.
CARPENTER, Judge.
Joseph Anthony Smith (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment entered upon his
guilty plea to, in relevant part, two counts of possession of methamphetamine. On
appeal, Defendant’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief because she was unable
to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for direct
relief on appeal. Under Anders and Kinch, Defendant’s appellate counsel requests STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
this Court conduct an independent review of the record for prejudicial error. After
careful review, we discern no non-frivolous issues and dismiss Defendant’s appeal.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
On 2 August 2023, following a traffic stop and subsequent searches of
Defendant’s person and vehicle, an Iredell County grand jury indicted Defendant for
one count each of: possession of methamphetamine; maintaining a vehicle for the
keeping or selling of controlled substances; possession of a weapon of mass
destruction; and possession of a firearm by a felon.
On 23 January 2024, Defendant was released on bond. That same day,
deputies from the Iredell County Sheriff’s Department were informed that a
suspected arsonist was sighted driving a pickup truck owned by Defendant. Based
on this information, deputies travelled to Defendant’s home to locate and investigate
the suspected arsonist. Upon arrival at Defendant’s home, deputies observed
Defendant’s pickup truck parked in the driveway and Defendant standing nearby.
Deputies approached Defendant and spoke with him. During the conversation,
deputies observed an empty holster around Defendant’s waistband and a bolt action
rifle on the hood of the pickup truck. Deputies conducted a probable cause search of
Defendant’s person and discovered methamphetamine in his pocket. Initially,
Defendant denied that the suspected arsonist was in his home. After further
questioning, however, Defendant admitted that the suspected arsonist was asleep
inside Defendant’s home.
-2- STATE V. SMITH
On 6 March 2024, an Iredell County grand jury indicted Defendant (the
“Indictment”) for one count each of: possession of methamphetamine; possession of
drug paraphernalia; harboring a fugitive; and possession of a firearm by a felon. On
30 April 2024, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a
felon and two counts of possession of methamphetamine.
The trial court sentenced Defendant to: twelve months minimum and twenty-
four months maximum in the Department of Adult Corrections for possession of a
firearm by a felon; six months minimum to seventeen months maximum in the
Department of Adult Corrections for possession of methamphetamine, suspended for
eighteen months of supervised probation; twelve months minimum and twenty-four
months maximum in the Department of Adult Corrections for possession of a firearm
by a felon, suspended for eighteen months of supervised probation; and six months
minimum and seventeen months maximum in the Department of Adult Corrections
for possession of methamphetamine, suspended for eighteen months of supervised
probation. On 1 May 2024, Defendant filed written notice of appeal.
II. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(4) and 15A-
1444(a2) (2023).
III. Anders Brief
Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99,
-3- STATE V. SMITH
331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Defendant’s appellate counsel complied with the
requirements of Anders and Kinch by: (1) conducting a thorough review of the record
and relevant law; (2) advising Defendant of his right to file his own supplemental
arguments; and (3) providing Defendant with the Anders brief, record on appeal, trial
transcript, and the mailing address of this Court. Defendant did not file any written
argument on his own behalf, and a reasonable time to do so has passed. Defendant’s
appellate counsel directs our attention to one potential issue on appeal: whether the
trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant’s charge of possession of
methamphetamine where the Indictment incorrectly listed methamphetamine as a
Schedule I controlled substance.
Under Anders and Kinch, this Court must conduct “a full examination of all
the proceedings[,]” which includes a “review [of] the legal points appearing in the
record, transcript, and briefs, not for the purpose of determining their merits (if any)
but to determine whether they are wholly frivolous.” Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102–03, 331
S.E.2d at 667 (citation omitted).
When a defendant has pleaded guilty, the scope of Anders review is limited by
section 15A-1444. See State v. Hamby, 129 N.C. App. 366, 368–70, 499 S.E.2d 195,
195–97 (1998); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444 (2023). Specifically, a defendant’s right of
appeal after pleading guilty is limited to whether: certain issues exist pertaining to
his sentence, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a1), (a2); the trial court improperly
denied his motion to suppress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1444(e), 15A-979(b) (2023);
-4- STATE V. SMITH
and the trial court improperly denied his motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no
contest, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(e). Nevertheless, because “[t]he issue of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time” including “for the first time on
appeal[,]” this Court may review the issue of whether an indictment was fatally
defective. State v. Frink, 177 N.C. App. 144, 147, 627 S.E.2d 472, 473 (2006).
Jurisdictional concerns arise “only when [an indictment] wholly fails to charge
a crime against the laws or people of this State.” State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183,
184–85, 900 S.E.2d 802, 804–805 (2024) (explaining that North Carolina has
departed from “strict common law pleading requirements for criminal indictments”).
Conversely, indictments “that contain non-jurisdictional deficiencies will not be
quashed or cast aside by reason of any informality when they express the crime
charged in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner such that the defendant has
notice sufficient to prepare a defense and to protect against double jeopardy.” Id. at
185, 900 S.E.2d at 805 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “To obtain relief on
the basis of a nonjurisdictional defect, a defendant must ‘show that the indictment
contained a statutory or constitutional defect and that such error was prejudicial.’”
State v. Simpson, 295 N.C. App. 425, 429, 906 S.E.2d 72, 77 (2024) (quoting State v.
Stewart, 386 N.C. 237, 240, 900 S.E.2d 652, 655 (2024)); see State v. Little, 296 N.C.
App. 424, 436, 909 S.E.2d 363, 371 (2024) (Carpenter, J., concurring).
Under section 90-95(a)(3) of our General Statues, it is unlawful for any person
to possess a controlled substance. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(3) (2023). Here,
-5- STATE V. SMITH
Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is
a Schedule II controlled substance. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-90(3)(c) (2023). The
Indictment incorrectly listed methamphetamine as a Schedule I controlled substance.
Although the Indictment incorrectly listed methamphetamine as a Schedule I
controlled substance instead of a Schedule II controlled substance, this defect is not
a jurisdictional defect under Singleton because the Indictment properly alleges that
Defendant committed a crime—possession of methamphetamine. See Singleton, 386
N.C. at 184–85, 900 S.E.2d at 804–05. Because the Indictment properly alleged a
crime, the trial court was not deprived of jurisdiction.
Thus, after careful review of the proceedings within the limits of section 15A-
1444, and the potential issue raised by Defendant’s appellate counsel, we conclude
Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with Anders and Kinch, we have conducted a thorough review of
the proceedings and conclude Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we
dismiss Defendant’s appeal.
DISMISSED.
Chief Judge DILLON and Judge MURRY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-6-