State v Monroe
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA01-1253 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 May 2002 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Lee County Nos. 01 CRS 50213 01 CRS 50216 JAMES ARTHUR MONROE Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 5 June 2001 by Judge Steve A. Balog in Lee County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 April 2002. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General Roy A. Giles, Jr., for the State. Deputy Attorney John T. Hall for defendant-appellant. MARTIN, Judge. Defendant was found guilty of two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 129 months. Defendant s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967). He states that he is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. He requests this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error. attached to the brief copies of correspondence Counsel has addressed to -2defendant advising defendant in accordance with Anders, including his right to file written arguments directly with this Court. Thus, counsel has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders, supra, and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf, not withstanding the passage of sufficient time within which to do so. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error to support a meaningful appeal and conclude the appeal is frivolous. No error. Judges HUNTER and BRYANT 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.
