State v. Hinton
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-1335 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 July 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Nash County No. 11 CRS 50675 TRAMELLA TINEAK HINTON Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 11 July 2013 by Judge Quentin T. Sumner in Nash County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 June 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Carrie D. Randa, for the State. J. Edward Yeager, Jr., for Defendant. STEPHENS, Judge. Defendant court Tramella conviction court. charge. for Tineak driving Hinton while appealed impaired her to district the superior Following trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of the The trial court sentenced Defendant to Level Four punishment, suspended the sentence, and placed her on supervised -2probation for eighteen months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. Defendant s counsel has filed a brief in which he states that, after examining the record and relevant cases and statutes, he is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. In accordance with 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), counsel has asked this Court to review the record on appeal for any possible prejudicial error or meritorious issue counsel may have overlooked. Counsel has also advised Defendant of his inability to find error and of Defendant s right to file her own arguments directly with this Court. To assist Defendant with making her own arguments, counsel provided Defendant with a copy of the brief filed with this Court, the record on appeal, and the trial transcript. counsel appeal : notes two To assist this Court in its review, possible issues that might support an (1) whether the court erred by overruling Defendant s objections to the testimony of a State s witness and (2) whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial attorney failed to request that the court remove the jurors from the courtroom, instead of merely placing them in the -3audience, when the jury in another case returned to the courtroom. We hold that counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch. Further, after examining the record and the authorities cited by counsel, we conclude that the two possible issues identified by counsel possible prejudicial error. do not rise to the level of Defendant has not filed her own written arguments, and a reasonable time within which she could have done so has passed. Based on a through and careful review of the record and brief, we are unable to find any issues to support any argument for meaningful relief conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. NO ERROR. Judges HUNTER, ROBERT C., and ERVIN concur. Report per Rule 30(e). on appeal and
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.
