State v. Baker

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA17-1354 Filed: 15 January 2019 Union County, No. 16 CRS 54621 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KARL ANDREW BAKER, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 6 June 2017 by Judge Christopher W. Bragg in Union County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 December 2018. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Jasmine S. McGhee, for the State. Guy J. Loranger, for defendant-appellant. Karl Andrew Baker, pro se. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Karl Andrew Baker (“Defendant”) appeals from judgments entered pursuant to his Alford plea to assault on a female and sexual battery. We find no error. I. Factual and Procedural Background STATE V. BAKER Opinion of the Court On 3 January 2017, a Union County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for seconddegree rape. In exchange for the State’s dismissal of the rape charge, Defendant entered an Alford plea to one count of assault on a female and one count of sexual battery, both Class A1 misdemeanor offenses. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-27.33, 14-33(c)(2) (2017). Consistent with the terms of the plea arrangement, the trial court imposed an active sentence of 150 days imprisonment for assault on a female and a consecutive suspended sentence of 150 days imprisonment, with 36 months of supervised probation for sexual battery. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal. II. Analysis Appellate counsel for Defendant filed a no-merit brief on Defendant’s behalf, in which he states he 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 shows to the satisfaction of this Court he 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 necessary documents to do so. The State filed a motion to dismiss Defendant’s appeal, arguing Defendant’s guilty plea limits his right to appeal to specific sentencing issues and he received a -2- STATE V. BAKER Opinion of the Court type of sentence disposition and term of imprisonment that was statutorily authorized. Given Defendant has a statutory right to appellate review of certain issues, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2), (e) (2017), and Defendant’s counsel filed an Anders brief asking this Court to review the record for any possible appealable issue, we deny the State’s motion to dismiss. See State v. Hamby, 129 N.C. App. 366, 369-70, 499 S.E.2d 195, 196-97 (1998) (conducting Anders review even though the defendant pled guilty and “brought forward no issues on appeal”). Defendant filed pro se arguments in which he appears to challenge the factual basis for his guilty plea and the trial court’s acceptance of his guilty plea as knowing and voluntary. Defendant’s arguments do not pertain to the issues from which Defendant has an appeal of right under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444, and, therefore, they are not cognizable by this Court on direct appeal. Defendant may seek relief by filing a motion for appropriate relief with the trial court. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A1415 (2017). In accordance with Anders, we fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. As noted above, our review of potential error in this case is limited to those issues authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444. See State v. Jamerson, 161 N.C. App. 527, 528-29, 588 S.E.2d 545, 546-47 (2003). Here, Defendant stipulated to his prior convictions and received terms of imprisonment in the range authorized for Class A1 misdemeanors with a prior -3- STATE V. BAKER Opinion of the Court conviction level III. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.23 (2017). Accordingly, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error and find no error in the judgments. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the judgments. NO ERROR. Chief Judge McGEE and Judge INMAN concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -4-

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.