State v Thomas
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA08-209 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 July 2008 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Mecklenburg County No. 06 CRS 255496 RANDY THOMAS Court of Appeals Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 August 2007 by Judge Yvonne Mims Evans in Jackson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 June 2008. Slip Opinion Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rufus C. Allen, for the State. Kimberly P. Hoppin for defendant-appellant. MARTIN, Chief Judge. Defendant Randy Lewis Thomas appeals from a judgment entered consistent with the jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree trespassing. For the following reasons, we find no error. This matter was initially tried in district court on 20 February 2007, where defendant was found guilty of second degree trespassing. de novo. Defendant appealed to the superior court for a trial After hearing evidence from the State and defendant, a jury found defendant guilty of second degree trespassing. By judgment entered 3 August 2007, the trial court ordered defendant -2to pay the costs of the action and not to enter onto the trespassed property unless his son was participating in an athletic event. Defendant appeals. Defendant s counsel states that she is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error. 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 arguments advising with this defendant Court necessary for him to do so. and of his right providing to him file with written documents Defendant filed a pro se brief with this Court on 7 March 2008. 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. In his pro se brief, defendant challenges his conviction on several State and Federal Constitutional grounds. Defendant ineffective assistance of counsel. record, the assignments of error also alleges he received Upon review of the entire noted in the record, and defendant s pro se arguments, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous. No error. Judges CALABRIA and STROUD concur. -3Report 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.
