An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA13-1411
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 19 August 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Robeson County
v.
Nos. 10 CRS 50185-86
VINCENT JOHN HALL
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 18 July 2013 by
Judge Gale M. Adams in Robeson County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 4 August 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Christina S. Hayes, for the State.
Anna S. Lucas for defendant-appellant.
ERVIN, Judge.
On 25 June 2010, Judge William J. Moore found Defendant
Vincent John Hall guilty in the Robeson County District Court of
assault on a government official, assault with a deadly weapon,
communicating threats, and resisting a public officer and
entered a judgment sentencing him to a term of 150 days
imprisonment. Defendant noted an appeal to the Robeson County
Superior Court for a trial de novo. The charges against
-2-
Defendant came on for trial before the trial court and a jury at
the 15 July 2013 criminal session of the Robeson County Superior
Court. On 18 July 2013, the jury returned verdicts finding
Defendant guilty of assault on a governmental official,
communicating threats, and resisting a public officer and
acquitting Defendant of assault with a deadly weapon. At the
conclusion of the ensuing sentencing hearing, the trial court
entered judgments sentencing Defendant to a term of 150 days
imprisonment based upon his conviction for assault upon a
governmental official and to a consecutive term of 31 days
imprisonment based upon his consolidated convictions for
communicating threats and resisting a public officer. Defendant
noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court’s judgments.
According to the brief that she filed on behalf of her
client, Defendant’s appellate counsel has been unable to
identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful
argument for relief on appeal and has, for that reason,
requested this Court to conduct its own review of the record for
the purpose of identifying any possible prejudicial error. As a
part of that process, Defendant’s appellate counsel has shown to
the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99,
-3-
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 to permit him to do so. Although
Defendant’s appellate counsel has directed our attention to a
potential issue on appeal arising from the fact that the
prosecutor impeached Defendant using criminal convictions that
were on appeal at the time of trial, she acknowledges that the
use of such convictions for impeachment-related purposes is
permissible. State v. Weaver, 160 N.C. App. 61, 66, 584 S.E.2d
345, 348 (2003). Defendant has not filed any written arguments
on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which
he might have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders, we
have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues
of arguable merit exist, have found no issue of arguable merit,
and conclude that Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. As a
result, the trial court’s judgments should be, and hereby are,
allowed to remain undisturbed.
NO ERROR.
Judges Robert C. HUNTER and STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).