State v Colclough
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-369 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 October 2006 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Durham County Nos. 03 CRS 054184 03 CRS 054186 03 CRS 054190 03 CRS 054193 03 CRS 054197 03 CRS 054199 03 CRS 054202 03 CRS 054204 03 CRS 054667 JERRY WAYNE COLCLOUGH Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 12 September 2005 by Judge Carl R. Fox in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 October 2006. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Graham, for the State. Michael J. Reece, for defendant-appellant. TYSON, Judge. Jerry Wayne Colclough ( defendant ) appeals judgments entered after pleading guilty. We affirm. I. Background On 12 September 2005, defendant pled guilty to six counts of conspiracy to sell a Schedule II controlled substance, six counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, two counts of conspiracy to -2traffic in cocaine by possession, sale, and transportation, one count of trafficking in cocaine by possession, and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court consolidated the offenses into three judgments and imposed three active terms of imprisonment for a minimum of thirty-five months consecutively. and a maximum of forty-two months to run Defendant appeals. II. Anders v. California Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Counsel has stated that after repeated and close examination of the Record, and after extensive review of the relevant law, [he] is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Counsel requests this Court to review the record for possible error he may have overlooked. Counsel has attached to the brief a letter he wrote to defendant in compliance with Anders and Kinch advising defendant of his inability to identify possible errors to assign on appeal and of defendant s right to file his own arguments directly with the Court. Defendant has not filed his own arguments and a reasonable time for him do so has passed. III. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the record and are unable to find any basis to support a meaningful argument of error on appeal. judgments appealed from are affirmed. Affirmed. The -3Judges BRYANT 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.
