State v. Wilson

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling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 Procedur e.
NO. COA14-813
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 17 February 2015
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Mecklenburg County
Nos. 11CRS247467-68, 247473
TAHJ KIERRE WILSON
Review of judgments entered 3 February 2014 by Judge Robert
C. Ervin in Mecklenburg County Superior Court upon grant of
Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari. Heard in the Court
of Appeals 12 January 2015.
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney
General Joseph E. Elder, for the State.
Gilda C. Rodriguez for Defendant-appellant.
DILLON, Judge.
A jury found Tahj Kierre Wilson (“Defendant”) guilty of
robbery with a dangerous weapon (“RWDW”), possession of cocaine,
and conspiracy to commit RWDW committed on 20 October 2011.
Defendant stipulated to prior convictions resulting in a prior
record level III. Despite the jury’s finding of two aggravating
factors, the trial court sentenced Defendant within the
-2-
presumptive range to prison terms of 84 to 110 months for RWDW and
33 to 49 months for the consolidated convictions of conspiracy and
cocaine possession.
The trial court’s judgments reflect Defendant’s entry of
notice of appeal. However, because neither oral nor written notice
of appeal appears in the record, counsel for Defendant has filed
a petition asking this Court to review the judgments by writ of
certiorari. In our discretion, we allow the petition for the
purpose of considering Defendant’s appeal.1
_______________________________________________________
Counsel appointed to represent Defendant is 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
shows 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 to do so.
1
Defendant’s motion to amend his petition is also allowed.
-3-
Defendant has not filed any written arguments 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 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 ELMORE and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).