An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-61
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 15 July 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
Nos. 10 CRS 94650
TEVIN ZAKAR CRITE 12 CRS 84462, 64, 66—69
12 CRS 87109—10, 92372
13 CRS 72224
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 1 July 2013 by
Judge Susan E. Bray in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 30 June 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Kimberly N. Callahan, for the State.
William D. Spence for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Where a review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals
that defendant’s appeal contains no issues of arguable merit, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
-2-
On 1 July 2013, defendant Tevin Zakar Crite1 pled guilty to
six counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and one
count each of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine,
conspiracy to sell or deliver cocaine, possession with intent to
sell or deliver marijuana, possession with intent to sell or
deliver a counterfeit controlled substance, breaking and/or
entering, larceny, possession of stolen goods, and assault with
a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. The trial court
consolidated the convictions into three judgments, imposing
consecutive active sentences of 25 to 42 months and 5 to 15
months, and a suspended sentence of 5 to 6 months and 18 months
of supervised probation. Defendant filed a pro se written
notice of appeal.
______________________________
At the outset, we must address the State’s motion to
dismiss the appeal and defendant’s petition for writ of
certiorari. On 10 July 2013, defendant filed a pro se document
captioned “Appeal Sentences and Charges/Plea Agreement” in the
trial court. The document did not identify the court to which
1
In judgment 10 CRS 94650, defendant’s first name is spelled
“Teven.” On defendant’s remaining judgments, his first name is
spelled “Tevin.” Defendant, on his hand-written notice of
appeal, spelled his name as “Tevin.” As such, this appeal gives
defendant’s first name as “Tevin.”
-3-
defendant appealed and did not include proof of service on the
State. Defendant asserts that although the document does not
wholly comply with the requirements for written notice of appeal
in a criminal case established by N.C. R. App. P. 4, it evinces
his timely intent to appeal from the judgments, and he seeks a
belated appeal.
“[W]hen a defendant has not properly given notice of
appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
State v. McCoy, 171 N.C. App. 636, 638, 615 S.E.2d 319, 320
(2005). However, a writ of certiorari may be issued to permit
review of the judgments and orders of trial tribunals “when the
right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take
timely action[.]” N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1) (2013).
The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed and
the petition should be denied because defendant pled guilty and
only had a limited right to appeal. We note, however, that even
in guilty plea cases, a defendant convicted of a felony has a
statutory right to appellate review of certain aspects of the
judgment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1444(a1)—(a2) (2013).
Further, this Court has the authority to issue its writ of
certiorari to permit belated appeals in guilty plea cases in
support of a defendant’s statutory right to appeal. State v.
-4-
Mungo, 213 N.C. App. 400, 404, 713 S.E.2d 542, 545 (2011).
Accordingly, because defendant failed to enter sufficient notice
of appeal, we allow the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal;
however, we exercise our discretion and grant defendant’s
petition for writ of certiorari to permit appellate review
pursuant to N.C. R. App. 21 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-32(c)
(2013).
_____________________________
Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal 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 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
-5-
arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find
any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is
wholly frivolous.
Affirmed.
Judges STROUD and HUNTER, Robert N., Jr., concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).