State v Cummings
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-1063 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 May 2006 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Columbus County No. 04 CRS 51726 STANLEY DWAYNE CUMMINGS Appeal by defendant from a judgment entered 7 February 2005 by Judge Ola M. Lewis in Columbus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 March 2006. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel P. O Brien, for the State. Jon W. Myers for defendant. BRYANT, Judge. Defendant Stanley Dwayne Cummings pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to trafficking in cocaine by possession. As part of defendant s plea agreement, he reserved the right to appeal the trial court s denial of his motion to suppress. sentenced defendant imprisonment. to thirty-five to The trial court forty-two months Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant s counsel states that [a]fter repeated and close examination of the record, extensive review of the law, he is unable to identify appellate issues supported by law or good faith -2argument and asks this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has 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 arguments advising with this defendant Court necessary for him to do so. and of his right providing him to file with written documents 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 must fully examine the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none. We affirm the trial court s denial of defendant s motion to suppress. Affirmed. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER 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.
