State v. Scogins
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA17-526 Filed: 21 November 2017 Mecklenburg County, No. 15 CRS 230053 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAESHAUN VALENTINE SCOGINS Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 3 January 2017 by Judge William R. Bell in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 2017. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph L. Hyde, for the State. Mary McCullers Reece for Defendant-Appellant. McGEE, Chief Judge. Raeshaun Valentine Scogins (“Defendant”) was indicted on 25 January 2016 on charges of felony possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his vehicle on 17 October 2016. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant entered an Alford plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to felony possession of STATE V. SCOGINS Opinion of the Court marijuana on 3 January 2017. Defendant reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress in the plea agreement. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court: (1) dismissed the charge of possession of marijuana paraphernalia; and (2) suspended Defendant’s term of four to fourteen months’ of imprisonment and placed him on unsupervised probation for twenty-four months. 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 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. AFFIRMED. -2- STATE V. SCOGINS Opinion of the Court Judges STROUD and DILLON 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.
