State v. Johnson
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-1036 Filed: 6 June 2017 Vance County, No. 15 CRS 50869 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL JOHNSON Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 April 2016 by Judge Donald W. Stephens in Vance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2017. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Alexander G. Walton, for the State. Leslie Rawls for defendant-appellant. ZACHARY, Judge. On 19 April 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of first-degree burglary and injury to real property and not guilty of assault on a female. At sentencing, he stipulated to having two prior convictions for assault on a female, which resulted in a corresponding prior record level II. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(b)(5), (c)(2) (2015). The trial court consolidated defendant’s offenses for judgment and sentenced STATE V. JOHNSON Opinion of the Court him at the bottom of the applicable presumptive range to a term of 59 to 83 months’ imprisonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c), (e) (2015). Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. Appellate counsel appointed to represent defendant was 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. 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 BRYANT and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -2-
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.
