Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute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. COA04-400
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  21 December  2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.                                                                                              Rockingham County
                                                                                                No.  03 CRS  50885
LARRY TINSLEY,
Defendant
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered  9 December  2003 by
Judge L. Todd Burke in Rockingham County Superior Court.   Heard in
the Court of Appeals  29 November  2004.
Attorney  General  Roy  Cooper,  by  Assistant  Attorney  General
Richard G. Sowerby, for the State.
Kelly Scott Lee for defendant-appellant.
STEELMAN, Judge.
Defendant  was  charged  and  convicted  of  common  law  robbery.
The trial court sentenced defendant to a mitigated sentence of 8-10
months  imprisonment.    This  sentence  was  suspended,  and  defendant
was placed on probation for  36 months.    Defendant appeals.
Counsel  appointed  to  represent  defendant  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  she  has




-2-
complied  with  the  requirements  of  Anders  v.  California,  386  U.S.
738,  18  L.  Ed.  2d  493,  reh'g  denied,  388  U.S.  924,  18  L.  Ed.  2d
1377                                                                            (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  arguable
merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.    Furthermore, we
have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found
none.
NO ERROR.
Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 04-400-5.pdf

South Carolina Law