State v. Knotts ( 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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA13-903
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 21 January 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Union County
Nos. 12 CRS 869, 11 CRS 55510
CALIPH KNOTTS
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 February 2013
by Judge Christopher W. Bragg in Union County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 December 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Jonathan D. Shaw, for the State.
Gilda C. Rodriguez for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
A jury found defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon and possession of drug paraphernalia. He then
pled guilty to attaining habitual felon status and stipulated to
additional prior convictions resulting in sixteen prior record
points and a corresponding prior record level V. The trial
court consolidated defendant’s offenses and sentenced him to an
-2-
active prison term of 101 to 131 months. From this judgment,
defendant appeals.
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.
She shows to the satisfaction of this Court that she has
complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (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 meritless.
No error.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge DILLON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).