State v. Wilson

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: February 17, 2015
• Docket: 14-813
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Procedur e.

NO. COA14-813 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 17 February 2015

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Mecklenburg County Nos. 11CRS247467-68, 247473 TAHJ KIERRE WILSON

Review of judgments entered 3 February 2014 by Judge Robert

C. Ervin in Mecklenburg County Superior Court upon grant of

Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari. Heard in the Court

of Appeals 12 January 2015.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph E. Elder, for the State.

Gilda C. Rodriguez for Defendant-appellant.

DILLON, Judge.

A jury found Tahj Kierre Wilson (“Defendant”) guilty of

robbery with a dangerous weapon (“RWDW”), possession of cocaine,

and conspiracy to commit RWDW committed on 20 October 2011.

Defendant stipulated to prior convictions resulting in a prior

record level III. Despite the jury’s finding of two aggravating

factors, the trial court sentenced Defendant within the -2- presumptive range to prison terms of 84 to 110 months for RWDW and

33 to 49 months for the consolidated convictions of conspiracy and

cocaine possession.

The trial court’s judgments reflect Defendant’s entry of

notice of appeal. However, because neither oral nor written notice

of appeal appears in the record, counsel for Defendant has filed

a petition asking this Court to review the judgments by writ of

certiorari. In our discretion, we allow the petition for the

purpose of considering Defendant’s appeal.1

_______________________________________________________

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant is 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

shows 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 (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 to do so.

1 Defendant’s motion to amend his petition is also allowed. -3- Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own

behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time for him to do so has

expired. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the

record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear

therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial

error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

NO ERROR.

Judges ELMORE and STEELMAN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).