State v. Tinsley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Tinsley

605 S.E.2d 743, 167 N.C. App. 657, 2004 N.C. App. LEXIS 2444, 2004 WL 2940886

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 21, 2004

DocketNo. COA04-400

StatusPublished

This text of 605 S.E.2d 743 (State v. Tinsley) 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. Tinsley, 605 S.E.2d 743, 167 N.C. App. 657, 2004 N.C. App. LEXIS 2444, 2004 WL 2940886 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

STEELMAN, Judge.

Defendant was charged and convicted of common law robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to a mitigated sentence of 8-10 months imprisonment. This sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for 36 months. 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 she has complied with 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. 2d1377 (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, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found none.

NO ERROR.

Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

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

STEELMAN, Judge.

Defendant was charged and convicted of common law robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to a mitigated sentence of 8-10 months imprisonment. This sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for 36 months. 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 she has complied with 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. 2d1377 (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, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found none.

NO ERROR.

Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 S.E.2d 743, 167 N.C. App. 657, 2004 N.C. App. LEXIS 2444, 2004 WL 2940886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tinsley-ncctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack