State v. Davis ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
NO. COA13-1110
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 20 May 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Mecklenburg County
Nos. 12 CRS 44899, 225761,
ISIAH DAVIS 230370
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 2 April 2013 by
Judge Marvin P. Pope in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 April 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Rebecca E. Lem, for the State.
Guy J. Loranger for Defendant-Appellant.
McGEE, Judge.
A jury found Isiah Davis (“Defendant”) guilty of two counts
of common law robbery on 2 April 2013. Thereafter, Defendant
pleaded guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The
trial court sentenced Defendant as a Class C, Prior Record Level
II offender to 70 to 96 months in prison. Defendant gave notice
of appeal in open court.
-2-
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 this Court to conduct its
own review of the record for possible prejudicial error.
Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he 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 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. We have been unable to find
any possible prejudicial error and conclude that Defendant’s
appeal is wholly frivolous.
No error.
Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).