State v. Figgs ( 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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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
A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e .
NO. COA14-294
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 15 July 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Beaufort County
No. 11 CRS 52674
ROBERT CHRISTOPHER FIGGS
On writ of certiorari to review judgments entered 26
February 2013 by Judge Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., in Beaufort
County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 June
2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Sherri Horner Lawrence, for the State.
Craig M. Cooley for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Where a review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals no
prejudicial error in defendant’s appeal, we find no error in the
judgment of the trial court.
Defendant Robert Christopher Figgs seeks review of
judgments entered 26 February 2013 upon guilty verdicts to
-2-
statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child. The
trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 317 to
390 and 21 to 26 months imprisonment for his respective
convictions. On 12 December 2013, this Court issued a writ of
certiorari to review defendant’s judgments.
________________________________
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 that this Court conduct
its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error.
Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he
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 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
-3-
any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is
wholly frivolous.
No error.
Judges STROUD and HUNTER, Robert N., Jr., concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).