State v. Crews
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA16-902 Filed: 4 April 2017 Rutherford County, No. 15 CRS 50829 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES CREWS Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 17 March 2016 by Judge Robert G. Horne in Rutherford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 March 2017. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kathryn H. Shields, for the State. Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. On appeal from his conviction in district court, defendant was found guilty by a jury of second-degree trespass, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-159.13 (2015). The trial court fined him $100.00 and ordered him to pay $372.50 in court costs. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. 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 STATE V. CREWS Opinion of the Court 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. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Judges DAVIS and ZACHARY 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.
