Opinion
COA22-316
12-06-2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM REID, JR.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Jessica N. Price, for the State. Richard Croutharmel for defendant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 October 2022.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 September 2021 by Judge Karen Eady-Williams in Buncombe County, Nos. 17 CRS 92983; 18 CRS 293, 475-76, 84322, 84324 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Jessica N. Price, for the State.
Richard Croutharmel for defendant.
DIETZ, Judge.
¶ 1 Defendant William Reid, Jr. pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and attaining habitual felon status. He then filed a pro se notice of appeal from the criminal judgment.
¶ 2 On appeal, his appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. After a full and independent examination of the record, we find no prejudicial error in the judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
¶ 3 In 2017, Defendant William Reid, Jr. forced his way into a woman's apartment, knocked her down, and cut her across the face with a large knife.
¶ 4 In September 2021, Reid pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and attaining habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced Reid to 88 to 118 months in prison and ordered him to pay $3,059.50 in restitution- an amount to which he had stipulated at sentencing. Reid filed a timely pro se notice of appeal.
Analysis
¶ 5 Counsel appointed to represent Reid on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that counsel is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Reid's counsel asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has filed documentation with the Court showing that he complied with the requirements of Anders and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Reid of his right to file written arguments with the Court and providing him with a copy of all documents pertinent to his appeal.
¶ 6 Reid has not filed any written documents on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time for him to do so has expired. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record and have not identified any possible prejudicial error. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's judgment.
Conclusion
¶ 7 We find no error in the trial court's judgment.
NO ERROR.
Judges DILLON and ARROWOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).