State v. Wyse
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-679 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 December 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Yadkin County No. 13 CRS 604 TIFFANY NICOLE WYSE Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 January 2014 by Judge William Z. Wood, Jr. in Yadkin County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 November 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kevin G. Mahoney, for the State. Anna S. Lucas for defendant-appellant. ELMORE, Judge. On 27 inflicting Court. January serious 2012, bodily defendant injury in pled guilty Guilford to County The trial court sentenced defendant to assault Superior 19-23 months imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed defendant on supervised probation for 36 months. Defendant’s probation was transferred to Yadkin County. 27 September 2013, defendant’s probation officer filed On a -2violation report alleging defendant willfully violated several conditions of her probation. 29 January 2014. The matter came on for hearing on The trial court found defendant willfully violated the conditions of probation and activated her suspended sentence. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. 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 this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has 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 her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with the documents necessary for her to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on her own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which she 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. -3- Affirmed. Judges STEELMAN and DILLON 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.
