State v Gouge

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-564 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 19 December 2006 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Yancey County Nos. 03 CRS 50912 03 CRS 50929-31 JOSEPH JAMES GOUGE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PATRICK SCOTT GOUGE Appeals by defendants from judgments entered 18 October 2005 by Judge Richard L. Doughton in Yancey County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 December 2006. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy General Robert C. Montgomery, for the State. Attorney Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendants-appellants. LEVINSON, Judge. On 17 October 2005, defendants Joseph James Gouge and Patrick Scott Gouge (collectively, defendants ) each pled guilty to second-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon in Yancey County Superior Court. After accepting defendants pleas, Judge Richard L. Doughton sentenced Joseph Gouge at the top of the -2presumptive range to a prison term of 157 to 198 months for seconddegree murder and a consecutive prison term of 64 to 86 months for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Judge Doughton consolidated the charges against Patrick Gouge for sentencing and sentenced him at the top of the presumptive range to a prison term of 157 to 198 months. Defendants appeal. For the reasons set out below, we affirm. Defendants appellate counsel states she is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal for either of the two defendants. As such, defense counsel asks this Court to fully review the record for possible prejudicial error. Defense counsel also brought forward and argued eleven assignments of error relating to Joseph Gouge and ten assignments of error relating to Patrick Gouge to fulfill her obligation to refer this Court to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal[.] Defense counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she 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 defendants of their right to file written arguments with this Court and providing them with the documents necessary for them to do so. Defendants have not filed any written arguments on their own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in which they could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders and Kinch, we must fully examine the -3record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. At the outset, we note that because defendants pled guilty and were sentenced within the presumptive range, their appeal is limited. Specifically, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444, a defendant who has pled guilty has a right to appeal only the following issues: (1) whether the sentence is supported by the evidence (if the minimum term of imprisonment does not fall within the presumptive range); (2) whether the sentence results from an incorrect finding of the defendant's prior record level under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14 or the defendant's prior conviction level under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.21; (3) whether the sentence contains a type of sentence not authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17 or § 15A-1340.23 for the defendant's class of offense and prior record or conviction level; (4) whether the sentence contains a term of imprisonment that is for a duration not authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17 or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.23 for the defendant's class of offense and prior record Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2)(3); or conviction level under N.C. (5) whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to suppress; or (6) whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. State v. Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. 527, 528-29, 588 S.E.2d 545, 546-47 (2003). We have reviewed the entire record for possible prejudicial error under Section 15A-1444 of the North Carolina General Statutes and have found none. Indeed, defendants were sentenced within the -4applicable presumptive range for their class of offense(s) at the lowest possible prior record level. Further, the record fails to show that the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence prior to the entry of defendants guilty pleas or that the trial court denied a motion to withdraw Accordingly, we find no error. No error. Judges TYSON and BRYANT concur. Report per Rule 30(e). defendants guilty pleas.

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.