State v. Mack ( 2015 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-1221
Filed: 5 May 2015
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Guilford County
v. Nos. 12 CRS 68172-76, 78
12 CRS 24304, 68166
ALEXANDER MACK
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 March 2014 by Judge Edgar B.
Gregory in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April
2015.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Sherri Horner
Lawrence, for the State.
William D. Spence for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Alexander Mack (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered upon his
guilty plea to multiple sexual offenses. We affirm.
I. Background
Defendant entered an Alford plea to seven counts of first-degree sexual offense
with a child and one count each of taking indecent liberties with a child and sex
offense while in a parental role on 13 March 2014. The terms of the plea provided
STATE V. MACK
Opinion of the Court
that the convictions would be consolidated into one judgment imposing a term of 192
to 240 months in prison.
Numerous other charges were dismissed, including additional first-degree
sexual offense charges. The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the terms
of the plea. Defendant gave notice of appeal.
II. Anders v. California
Counsel appointed to represent Defendant on appeal 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 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 by providing him with the documents
necessary for him to do so.
III. Conclusion
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. The
judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
-2-
STATE V. MACK
Opinion of the Court
Judges BRYANT and DIETZ concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-3-