State v. Newbill
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA16-1163 Filed: 5 July 2017 Mecklenburg County, Nos. 15 CRS 227785-87 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRY ONASSIS NEWBILL Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 1 June 2016 by Judge Linwood O. Foust in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 June 2017. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Matthew L. Liles, for the State. Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Andrew DeSimone, for defendant. DIETZ, Judge. Defendant Terry Onassis Newbill appeals from a judgment entered 1 June 2016 upon his guilty plea to trafficking in heroin by possession, maintaining a building for the purpose of keeping or selling controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before Newbill pleaded guilty, the trial court denied his STATE V. NEWBILL Opinion of the Court motions to suppress evidence found during his arrest and statements he made to investigators. Newbill properly preserved his right to appeal the order denying his motions to suppress. The trial court consolidated Newbill’s convictions into a single judgment and sentenced him to 70 to 93 months in prison. Newbill timely appealed. Counsel appointed to represent Newbill has been unable to identify any issue of 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 shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Newbill of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Newbill 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 and Kinch, this Court conducted an independent review of the record. We are unable to find any possible prejudicial error and therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. Judges ELMORE and BERGER 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.
