State v. Bass ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-492
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 21 October 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Wake County
Nos. 12 CRS 222166, 13 CRS 181
WILLIAM OTIS BASS, JR.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 December 2013
by Judge Paul G. Gessner in Wake County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Laura E. Parker, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant
Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendant-
appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
On 9 December 2013, defendant William Otis Bass, Jr., was
found guilty by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon
inflicting serious injury. Defendant subsequently pled guilty
to having attained the status of an habitual felon. The trial
court sentenced defendant to a single term of 144 to 185 months
imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
-2-
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 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.
Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).