State v Baldwin
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA01-923 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 April 2002 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Pasquotank County No. 96-CRS-3986 LARRY D. BALDWIN Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 27 March 2001 by Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr., in Pasquotank County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 March 2002. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth N. Strickland, for the State. David L. Credle for defendant appellant. McCULLOUGH, Judge. On 3 March 1997, defendant Larry D. Baldwin pled guilty to one count of defendant second-degree to 20-24 burglary. months The trial imprisonment, court then sentenced suspended the sentence and placed defendant on supervised probation for 60 months. On 24 January 2001, defendant s probation officer executed a violation report alleging that defendant violated conditions of probation which required him to make monetary payments and to consent to drug screens. executed an addendum to On 23 March 2001, the probation officer the violation report, alleging defendant tested positive for cocaine on 16 February 2001. that At the -2conclusion of the hearing on 27 March 2001, the trial court found that defendant willfully and without lawful excuse committed the alleged violations. activated defendant s The trial prison court sentence. revoked From probation this and judgment, defendant appealed. Defendant s appointed counsel filed a brief on defendant s behalf stating that he is unable to find any assignment of error with merit. He requests this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error. He attached to the brief a letter he wrote to defendant advising defendant in accordance with 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). Defendant filed no written arguments of his own. We have carefully reviewed the record and are unable to find any possible error which supports a meaningful appeal. See id; and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). No error. Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge TIMMONS-GOODSON 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.
