State v. Davis
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-1110 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 May 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Mecklenburg County Nos. 12 CRS 44899, 225761, 230370 ISIAH DAVIS Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 2 April 2013 by Judge Marvin P. Pope in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 April 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rebecca E. Lem, for the State. Guy J. Loranger for Defendant-Appellant. McGEE, Judge. A jury found Isiah Davis ( Defendant ) guilty of two counts of common law robbery on 2 April 2013. Thereafter, Defendant pleaded guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Class C, Prior Record Level II offender to 70 to 96 months in prison. of appeal in open court. Defendant gave notice -2Counsel 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 this Court to conduct its own review of 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 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. 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 have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. any possible prejudicial error We have been unable to find and appeal is wholly frivolous. No error. Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e). conclude that Defendant s
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.
