State v Parrish
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1638 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 October 2004 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Pender County No. 03 CRS 51882 DURLAND PARRISH Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 12 September 2003 by Judge Ernest B. Fullwood in Pender County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 August 2004. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Q. Shante Martin, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes for defendant-appellant. TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge. Defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to firstdegree sex offense with a child. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a presumptive term of 192-240 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals. Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with 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 -2has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of 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), 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 for him to do so. Defendant 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, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none. No error. Judges CALABRIA and LEVINSON 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.
