State v. Figgs
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . NO. COA14-294 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Beaufort County No. 11 CRS 52674 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER FIGGS On writ February 2013 of certiorari by Judge County Superior Court. to review judgments Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., entered 26 in Beaufort Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 June 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Sherri Horner Lawrence, for the State. Craig M. Cooley for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Where a review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals no prejudicial error in defendant s appeal, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court. Defendant judgments Robert entered 26 Christopher February 2013 Figgs upon seeks guilty review of verdicts to -2statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 317 to 390 and 21 convictions. to 26 months imprisonment for his respective On 12 December 2013, this Court issued a writ of certiorari to review defendant s judgments. ________________________________ 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 (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. We have been unable to find -3any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. No error. Judges STROUD and HUNTER, Robert N., Jr., 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.
