Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of North Carolina v. Richard PRIDGEN
Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual offense with a child, two counts of indecent liberties with a child, and one count of rape of a child by an adult offender. He was sentenced to an active term of imprisonment.
Defendant later filed a post-conviction motion for DNA testing. The trial court denied this motion. Defendant filed a pro se written notice of appeal that failed to comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure as it did not state which court Defendant is appealing to and there is no indication it was served on the State. See N.C. R. App. P. 4(b), (c). Defendant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we hereby grant.
Defendant's counsel filed a no-merit brief on appeal pursuant to 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), requesting this Court conduct an independent examination of the record for any prejudicial error. Defendant's counsel refers this Court to the following issues which may support Defendant's appeal: (1) whether the trial court improperly denied Defendant's motion and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying appointment of counsel.
Defendant's counsel shows to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493; Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665. Counsel has advised Defendant of his right to file supplemental arguments with this Court and provided him with the documents necessary to do so. Defendant has not filed with this Court any arguments on his own behalf.
After conducting a full and independent examination of the record, including the potential issues presented by Defendant's counsel, we are unable to conclude there was any prejudicial error and determine that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we discern no error in the trial court's judgment.
NO ERROR.
Report per Rule 30(e).
PER CURIAM.
Panel consisting of Judges STROUD, TYSON, and WOOD.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. COA24-528
Decided: November 19, 2024
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)