State v Logan
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA11-521 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 September 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County Nos. 09 CRS 53221, 54830 MARCUS DESHAUN LOGAN Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 13 January 2011 by Judge Mark E. Powell in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 September 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Brenda Eaddy, for the State. Jon W. Myers for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. On 15 July 2009, defendant Marcus Deshaun Logan pled guilty to attempted common law robbery and injury to real property. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of six to eight months imprisonment. The trial court suspended defendant s sentence and placed him on supervised probation for eighteen months. -2On 12 November 2010, a probation violation report was filed alleging that defendant: (1) tested positive for marijuana; (2) was in arrears on the monetary conditions of his probation; (3) was unsuccessfully discharged from a treatment program; and (4) failed to obtain gainful employment. On 13 January 2011, the trial court held a violation hearing in Buncombe County Superior Court. probation Defendant admitted to violating his probation. The trial court found that defendant terms willfully violated the of his probation. Accordingly, the trial court revoked defendant s probation and activated his suspended sentence. 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 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 -3have 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.
