State v Blackwell
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA08-289 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 July 2008 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Mecklenburg County No. 04 CRS 206240 KAYLA BLACKWELL Court of Appeals Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 October 2007 by Judge David S. Cayer in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 June 2008. Slip Opinion Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John G. Barnwell, for the State. Richard Croutharmel, for defendant-appellant. MARTIN, Chief Judge. On 29 November 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Kayla Blackwell pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of twenty to thirty-three months imprisonment. further ordered that defendant serve 153 The trial court days imprisonment immediately, but gave her credit for 153 days served in prison prior to judgment. The trial court suspended the remainder of defendant s sentence and placed her on supervised probation for thirty-six months. -2On 17 September 2007, a probation violation report was filed alleging that defendant had violated the conditions of her probation by testing positive for marijuana and cocaine, being in arrears on her monetary obligations, and failing to meet the condition of probation that she successfully pass the G.E.D. examination within the first twelve months of her probationary period. A probation violation hearing was held in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on 18 October 2007. violations. Defendant admitted to the The trial court found that defendant violated the terms of her probation based on her admission. trial court revoked suspended sentence. defendant s probation Accordingly, the and activated her Defendant appeals. Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also 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 advising defendant of her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with the documents necessary for her to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on her own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which she could -3have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. No error. Judges CALABRIA and STROUD 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.
