State v. Garcia

STROUD

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 25 April 2012 by Judge Allen Baddour in Chatham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 January 2013.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III by Assistant Attorney General Yvonne B. Ricci, for the State.

Guy J. Loranger for defendant-appellant.

STROUD, Judge.

Luis Antonio Nunez Garcia ("defendant") appeals from judgments dated 25 April 2012 and entered upon his Alford plea to second degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, first degree arson, trafficking in cocaine by possession, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, and two counts of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Defendant stipulated to the existence of one aggravating factor and the trial court found that the factors in aggravation outweighed the factors in mitigation. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggravated-range term of 237 to 294 months imprisonment for second degree murder and consolidated the remaining convictions for sentencing, imposing a consecutive term of 95 to 123 months.

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 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 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. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

No error. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur. Report per Rule 30(e).