State v Stovall
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA08-678 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 December 2008 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Iredell County Nos. 07 CRS 3277-81 DEREK STOVALL Court of Appeals Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 19 October 2007 by Judge Christopher M. Collier in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 2008. Slip Opinion Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Jane L. Oliver, for the State. Leslie C. Rawls, for Defendant. ARROWOOD, Judge. On 19 October 2007, a jury found Defendant guilty of intimidating a witness and three counts of communicating threats, and Defendant pleaded guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 90 to 117 months imprisonment. 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. -2Counsel 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 him to file with written documents Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in which he 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. wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is 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. Judges TYSON and BRYANT 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.
