State v. Adlan

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-92 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 August 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Guilford County No. 12 CRS 94068 MAGEED KAFI ADLAN Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 30 August 2013 by Judge R. Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Colin A. Justice, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Charlesena Elliott Walker, for defendant- appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Defendant appeals from a judgment imposing an active sentence of a minimum of 73 months and a maximum of 100 months upon defendant’s conviction by a jury of first degree burglary. Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief on defendant’s behalf in which counsel states she “has examined the Superior Court record and relevant cases and statutes, but is unable to -2- identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.” She requests this Court “to fully examine the record on appeal for possible prejudicial error and to determine whether counsel overlooked any meritorious issue in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.E. 2d 493 (1967) and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985).” Counsel has attached to her brief a letter she wrote to defendant in which she advised defendant: (1) of her inability to find errors likely to result in relief on appeal, (2) of her action in filing a brief with this Court and requesting this Court to determine whether any prejudicial error occurred in his case, and (3) of his right to file his own written arguments directly with this Court. Counsel noted in the letter that a copy of the brief and the record on appeal had been sent to defendant. To assist him with any arguments he may wish to file, counsel promised to provide defendant with a copy of the State’s brief as soon as she received it. She also provided defendant with the address to which he must mail his written arguments immediately. Counsel has also identified in her brief one possible issue concerning the admission of inadmissible hearsay statements. -3- We are satisfied that counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch. After examining the record and the authorities cited by counsel, we conclude that the issue identified by counsel does not constitute possible prejudicial error. Defendant has not filed his own written arguments, and after careful examination, we are unable to find anything in the record to support any argument for meaningful relief on appeal. We accordingly find no error. No error. Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).