State v. Williams
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-1162 Filed: 18 April 2017 Durham County, Nos. 15 CRS 3955, 16 CRS 69 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAQUANA WILLIAMS1 Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 24 May 2016 by Judge Elaine M. O’Neal in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 April 2017. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Allison Angell, for the State. Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily H. Davis, for defendant-appellant. DAVIS, Judge. Shaquana Williams (“Defendant”) appeals from judgments entered upon revocation of her probation. After careful review, we affirm. 1 In four separate judgments, Defendant’s name is spelled variously as “Shaquanna Williams,” “Shaquana Lavon Williams,” “Shaquana Lavonne Williams,” and “Shaquana Lavonne J Williams.” All of these spellings refer to the same person. STATE V. WILLIAMS Opinion of the Court Factual and Procedural Background On 16 November 2015, Defendant pled guilty to felony larceny in Wake County District Court and was sentenced to 6 to 17 months imprisonment, but the sentence was suspended and Defendant was placed on supervised probation for 18 months. On 30 November 2015, Defendant pled guilty to felony larceny and speeding to elude arrest in Alamance County Superior Court and was sentenced to a consolidated term of 8 to 19 months imprisonment, but the sentence was suspended and Defendant was placed on supervised probation for 24 months. Probation in both cases was transferred to Durham County. On 30 December 2015, a probation violation report was filed in 15 CRS 3955, alleging that Defendant: (1) violated the absconding condition of her probation by willfully avoiding supervision or making her whereabouts unknown to her probation officer; (2) failed to pay court costs; and (3) failed to pay supervision fees. On 4 February 2016, a probation violation report was filed in 16 CRS 69, alleging that Defendant: (1) violated the absconding condition of her probation by willfully avoiding supervision or making her whereabouts unknown to her probation officer; (2) failed to obtain an ordered evaluation; and (3) failed to serve a five-day sentence. On 24 May 2016, the trial court found Defendant to be in willful violation of the conditions of her probation, revoked her probation, and activated her suspended sentences. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal. -2- STATE V. WILLIAMS Opinion of the Court Analysis Counsel appointed to represent Defendant states that she is 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 shows 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 to do so. Defendant has not filed any documents on her own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time for her to do so has expired. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issue of arguable merit appears therein. We are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the judgments and conclude that Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s 24 May 2016 judgments. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Judges BRYANT and ZACHARY concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -3-
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.
