State v Riddle
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-534 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 November 2006 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Alamance County Nos. 04 CRS 51123; 51126 HEATHER G. RIDDLE Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 12 January 2006 by Judge J.B. Allen, Jr., in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 October 2006. Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth N. Strickland, for the State. Robert T. Newman, Sr., for defendant-appellant. JACKSON, Judge. On 11 March 2004, Heather G. Riddle ( defendant ) pled guilty to the following charges: possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana; sale of marijuana; delivery of marijuana; possession with intent to sell, manufacture and deliver Schedule IV controlled substance; sale of Schedule IV controlled substance; and delivery of Schedule IV controlled substance. The trial court consolidated the convictions into two judgments and sentenced defendant to imprisonment. two consecutive terms of six to eight months The trial court suspended defendant s sentences and -2placed defendant on thirty-six months of supervised probation. Defendant s probationary conditions subsequently were modified without charge of violation on 8 December 2004, 18 February 2005 and 14 July 2005. Defendant s probation officer filed probation violation reports on 5 August 2005 and, on 29 September 2005, the trial court entered an order on violation of probation in which defendant s probationary conditions were modified once again. Defendant s probation officer filed additional probation violation reports on 7 December 2006 alleging that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of her probationary judgments. After conducting a probation violation hearing in which defendant denied the allegations, the trial court found defendant willfully violated her probation and activated her suspended sentences. Defendant appeals from the revocation of her probation and the activation of her suspended sentences. Defendant s counsel states that after careful review of the record, he was Assignments unable of Error to and find no legal error merit in to any of the Defendant/Appellant s probation revocation hearing[.] He asks this Court to examine 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 and of her right providing her to file with written documents -3necessary for her to do so. Defendant has not filed with this Court any written arguments on her own behalf, and a reasonable time in which she 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. After a thorough review of the record on appeal and the transcript of defendant s revocation hearing, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none. We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error. No error. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA 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.
