Opinion
No. COA12–919.
2012-12-4
STATE of North Carolina v. Latisha McLAURIN and Alice Graham.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Reece & Reece, by Michael J. Reece, for defendant-appellant Alice Graham.
Appeal by defendants from judgments entered 18 May 2012 by Judge Arnold O. Jones, II in Sampson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 November 2012. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Reece & Reece, by Michael J. Reece, for defendant-appellant Alice Graham.
Richard Croutharmel for defendant-appellant Latisha McLaurin.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
On 20 February 2012, defendants Latisha McLaurin and Alice Graham were each indicted on charges of felonious larceny and felonious possession of stolen goods. Upon the State's motion for joinder, defendants were tried together during the 14 May 2012 Criminal Session of Sampson County Superior Court. A jury found both defendants guilty as charged. The convictions were related to the theft of televisions from a Wal–Mart store in Clinton, North Carolina. The trial court arrested judgment on the possession of stolen goods charge as to each defendant and sentenced each defendant to a term of 9 to 11 months active imprisonment. Defendants appeal.
Counsel appointed to represent defendant Graham 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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant Graham of her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with the documents necessary for her to do so.
Defendant Graham has not filed any written arguments on her own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which she 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 or whether defendant Graham's appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude her appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error against defendant Graham and found none.
Counsel appointed to represent defendant McLaurin also has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and also 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 and Kinch by advising defendant McLaurin of her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with the documents necessary for her to do so. Counsel directs our attention to potential issues on appeal, but acknowledges that he detected no reversible error on the part of the trial court. We have reviewed the issues raised by counsel and agree that the trial court did not commit reversible error.
Defendant McLaurin filed a pro se brief. First, defendant McLaurin claims that she could not have committed larceny because she never carried away the stolen televisions. However, she ignores the State's theory that she was acting in concert with other individuals to steal the televisions in question. “Under the theory of acting in concert, if two or more persons join in a purpose to commit a crime, each person is responsible for all unlawful acts committed by the other persons as long as those acts are committed in furtherance of the crime's common purpose.” State v. Hill, 182 N.C.App. 88, 92–93, 641 S.E.2d 380, 385 (2007). The overwhelming evidence in this case suggests that defendant McLaurin was acting in concert with other individuals to commit felonious larceny; therefore, whether defendant McLaurin did or did not carry the stolen items is inconsequential. This assignment of error is overruled.
Second, defendant McLaurin claims that she could not have committed possession of stolen goods because she was not the owner of the vehicle that was stopped in connection with the theft. Her contention in this regard is equally without merit, as one need not have actual possession; if she “has the power and intent to control the use or disposition of the substance, [she] is said to have constructive possession.” State v. Baldwin, 161 N.C.App. 382, 391, 588 S.E.2d 497, 504–05 (2003). But, in any event, the trial court arrested judgment as to the conviction of felonious possession of stolen goods, and we need address her contention as to that claim no further.
Next, defendant McLaurin claims the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding additional items stolen from another Wal–Mart store. However, the State never introduced evidence regarding the additional items stolen from the other store. Therefore, defendant's claim in this regard is erroneous.
Defendant McLaurin also challenges the weight of the State's evidence. However, issues regarding weight and credibility of the evidence are for the jury to determine. See State v. Boyd, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 714 S.E.2d 466, 473 (2011) (“It is well settled that ‘[t]he weight of evidence is always a question for the jury.’ ”); State v. Kirby, 206 N.C.App. 446, 455, 697 S.E.2d 496, 502 (2010). Furthermore, we find that the trial court properly determined there was substantial evidence to send the case to the jury. We have reviewed defendant McLaurin's other issues on appeal and find them to be without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether defendant McLaurin's appeal is wholly frivolous. Because defendant McLaurin has raised only issues which are meritless, we conclude her appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error against defendant McLaurin and found none.
No error. Judges STROUD and HUNTER, JR. concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).