State v Moore
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA11-333 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 September 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Cabarrus County Nos. 09 CRS 5418, 53954, 09 CRS 54037 BRANDON JAMAL MOORE Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 20 September 2010 by Judge Theodore S. Royster in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 September 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy General Donald R. Teeter, Sr., for the State. Attorney Jon W. Myers for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, Jr., Robert N., Judge. On guilty 9 November to felony sentenced 2009, possession defendant imprisonment. defendant to a of term Brandon cocaine. of six Jamal The to Moore trial eight pled court months The trial court suspended defendant s sentence and placed him on supervised probation for eighteen months with a required twenty-four hours of community service. -2On 6 May 2010, defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary, larceny from the person, and possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine. The trial court imposed sentences of nineteen to twenty-three months imprisonment for the burglary charge and eight to ten months imprisonment for the larceny and possession sentences charges. and placed The him trial on court suspended thirty-six months defendant s of supervised probation. On 4 August 2010, probation violation reports were filed in all three cases. positive for The reports alleged that defendant: (1) tested marijuana; (2) did not complete his community service hours; (3) did not complete a GED program; (4) violated curfew; (5) failed to obtain a substance abuse assessment; and (6) was convicted of criminal offenses. On 20 September 2010, the trial court held a probation violation hearing in Cabarrus County Superior Court. admitted to violating his probation. Defendant The trial court found that defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation in all three cases. probation and Accordingly, the trial court revoked defendant s activated his suspended sentences. Defendant appeals. Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful -3argument 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. Judges MARTIN and THIGPEN 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.
