State v. Frazier
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-858 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 February 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Mecklenburg County No. 12 CRS 203607 KEITH REGINALD FRAZIER Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 15 March 2013 by Judge C. Thomas Edwards in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General David W. Boone, for the State. Deputy Attorney Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Paul M. Green, for defendant-appellant. DILLON, Judge. Keith Reginald Frazier ( Defendant ) appeals from judgment dated 15 March 2013 and entered upon a guilty verdict convicting him of possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of 12 to 24 months imprisonment and placed Defendant on supervised probation for 18 months. Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful -2argument 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 (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. been unable to find any After careful review, we have possible prejudicial error, therefore, we affirm the judgment below. AFFIRMED. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER, JR. concur. Report per Rule 30(e). 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.
