STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Nash County
No. 01 CRS 051073
RICHARD LEWIS PATTERSON
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate
Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellant.
WYNN, Judge.
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.
Ed. 2d 493, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967),
and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), we have
fully examined the record for possible prejudicial error under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444 and have found no error.
By a proper bill of indictment the defendant was charged with
first-degree murder. The defendant pled guilty to second-degree
murder pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27 L. Ed.
2d 162 (1970). According to the terms of the plea agreement, the
defendant plead guilty to second degree murder and, in exchange, he
would receive a sentence from the low end of the mitigated range of
a minimum of 132 months and a corresponding maximum of 168 monthsbased upon the defendant's prior record level of “III.” The
defendant stipulated to the factual basis to support his guilty
plea and the trial court accepted the defendant's plea.
(See footnote 1)
After the
trial court found seven mitigating factors and no aggravating
factors, the court sentenced the defendant to 132 to 168 months
imprisonment.
At the outset we note that the record on appeal does not
include a notice of appeal. We, therefore, grant certiorari to
review those issues the defendant would have been able to raise on
his limited direct appeal. Specifically, “under N.C.G.S. §
15A-1444(e), a defendant who has entered a plea of guilty is not
entitled to appellate review as a matter of right, unless the
defendant is appealing sentencing issues or the denial of a motion
to suppress, or the defendant has made an unsuccessful motion to
withdraw the guilty plea." State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69,
73, 568 S.E.2d 867, 870, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573
S.E.2d 163 (2002); See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2). While
defense counsel asks this Court to issue certiorari to review
issues outside the scope of the defendant's limited appeal, we are
without authority to do so. See State v. Dickson, 151 N.C. App.
136, 564 S.E.2d 640 (2002) (providing that while N.C. Gen. Stat. §
15A-1444(e) allows a defendant to petition for writ of certiorari,
the appellate court was limited by N.C.R. App. P. 21 to issuing awrit of certiorari in appropriate circumstances to permit review of
the judgments and orders of trial tribunals when the right to
prosecute an appeal had been lost by failure to take timely action,
or when no right of appeal from an interlocutory order existed, or
for review pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1422(c)(3) of an order
of the trial court denying a motion for appropriate relief).
The defendant's counsel states that she “is unable to identify
an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for
relief on appeal,” and asks this Court to review the record for any
prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this
Court that she 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 the
defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court
and providing him with documents necessary for him to do so. The
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 must fully examine the record to
determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or
whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is
wholly frivolous. In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted
our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error
under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444 and have found none.
We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial
error. No error.
Judges TYSON and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***