State v. Locklear
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA17-310 Filed: 5 December 2017 Robeson County, Nos. 11 CRS)56050-52, 14 CRS)56135-36 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLANCY RAY LOCKLEAR Appeal by defendant from judgments entered on or about 22 August 2016 by Judge Robert F. Floyd in Superior Court, Robeson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 November 2017. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher R. McLennan, for the State. Leslie Rawls for defendant-appellant. STROUD, Judge. Defendant orally appealed from an order denying his motion to suppress and judgments entered upon his guilty plea to several drug-related offenses. On appeal, defendant only requests this Court to review for any errors his counsel may not have found. Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must fully examine the documents before us to determine if defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. See State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. STATE V. LOCKLEAR Opinion of the Court 99, 102–03, 331 S.E.2d 665, 667 (1985) (“Pursuant to Anders, this Court must now determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. In carrying out this duty, we will review the legal points appearing in the record, transcript, and briefs, not for the purpose of determining their merits (if any) but to determine whether they are wholly frivolous.” (footnote omitted)). As to defendant’s motion to suppress alleging the search warrant did not establish the premises to be searched with “reasonable certainty[,]” we agree with the trial court that the search warrant did establish with “reasonable certainty” the premises which were to be searched. Defendant has no trial to review as he pled guilty, and his judgments appear in accordance with North Carolina sentencing law. Therefore, we dismiss. See id. DISMISSED. Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON 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.
