State v. Bass
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-492 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 October 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Wake County Nos. 12 CRS 222166, 13 CRS 181 WILLIAM OTIS BASS, JR. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 December 2013 by Judge Paul G. Gessner in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Parker, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendantappellant. McCULLOUGH, Judge. On 9 December 2013, defendant William Otis Bass, Jr., was found guilty by a jury inflicting serious injury. of assault with a deadly weapon Defendant subsequently pled guilty to having attained the status of an habitual felon. The trial court sentenced defendant to a single term of 144 to 185 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals. -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 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 she 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. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. No error. Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE 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.
