State v. Adlan

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-92
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 5 August 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
No. 12 CRS 94068
MAGEED KAFI ADLAN
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 30 August 2013 by
Judge R. Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Colin A. Justice, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate
Defender Charlesena Elliott Walker, for defendant-
appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Defendant appeals from a judgment imposing an active
sentence of a minimum of 73 months and a maximum of 100 months
upon defendant’s conviction by a jury of first degree burglary.
Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief on defendant’s behalf
in which counsel states she “has examined the Superior Court
record and relevant cases and statutes, but is unable to
-2-
identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful
argument for relief on appeal.” She requests this Court “to
fully examine the record on appeal for possible prejudicial
error and to determine whether counsel overlooked any
meritorious issue in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 18 L.E. 2d 493 (1967) and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99,
331 S.E.2d 665 (1985).” Counsel has attached to her brief a
letter she wrote to defendant in which she advised defendant:
(1) of her inability to find errors likely to result in relief
on appeal, (2) of her action in filing a brief with this Court
and requesting this Court to determine whether any prejudicial
error occurred in his case, and (3) of his right to file his own
written arguments directly with this Court. Counsel noted in
the letter that a copy of the brief and the record on appeal had
been sent to defendant. To assist him with any arguments he may
wish to file, counsel promised to provide defendant with a copy
of the State’s brief as soon as she received it. She also
provided defendant with the address to which he must mail his
written arguments immediately. Counsel has also identified in
her brief one possible issue concerning the admission of
inadmissible hearsay statements.
-3-
We are satisfied that counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders and Kinch. After examining the record
and the authorities cited by counsel, we conclude that the issue
identified by counsel does not constitute possible prejudicial
error. Defendant has not filed his own written arguments, and
after careful examination, we are unable to find anything in the
record to support any argument for meaningful relief on appeal.
We accordingly find no error.
No error.
Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).