State v Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA01-252 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 July 2002 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Onslow County No. 99 CRS 57459 EDDIE LEO BROWN Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 17 January 2001 by Judge Ernest B. Fullwood in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 June 2002. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Long, for the State. John W. Ceruzzi for defendant-appellant. TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge. Eddie possession Leo of Brown cocaine. ( defendant ) The trial was convicted court imposed of a felony suspended sentence of six to eight months and defendant was placed on supervised probation for twenty-four 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 he has -2complied 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. Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge MCCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
