State v. Smith ( 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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-296
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 19 August 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
No. 12CRS087589
LAMARD EUGENE SMITH,
Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 12
August 2013 by Judge Christopher W. Bragg in Guilford County
Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 2014.
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper III, by Special Deputy
Attorney General Grady L. Balentine, Jr., for the State.
Diepenbrock Law Office, P.A., by J. Thomas Diepenbrock, for
defendant-appellant.
STROUD, Judge.
On 12 August 2013, defendant pled guilty to common law
robbery and larceny from a merchant and stipulated to a prior
record level II based on his 2010 conviction for attempted
common law robbery. The trial court consolidated defendant’s
offenses for judgment and sentenced him to an active prison term
of 14 to 26 months. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.
-2-
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. He
shows 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 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 BRYANT and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).