STATE v. CURL (2025)

Alice F. Curl (Defendant) appeals from judgment entered upon her no contest plea to attempted assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. For the reasons below, this Court holds that the trial court did not reversibly err and affirms its judgment.

On appeal, Defendant's appointed counsel cannot “identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal” and thus asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record for prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to our satisfaction her compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 (1985). Counsel advised Defendant of her right to file written arguments with this Court and provided her with the documents necessary to do so. Defendant herself filed no written arguments.

Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444, a defendant who pleads no contest to a felony in superior court may to appeal as of right the issue of whether the resulting sentence implicates (1) “an incorrect finding of [her] prior record ․ or conviction level”; (2) an “[un]authorized” “type of sentence disposition”; or (3) an “[un]authorized” “term of imprisonment.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(a2)(1)–(3) (2023) (citation omitted). In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record for any issues of arguable merit on appeal. The record shows that the trial court properly sentenced Defendant within the mitigated range for her offense. It also shows that the trial court correctly found Defendant to be a prior Level III offender for sentencing purposes. Thus, this Court concludes that the trial court did not reversibly err and affirms its judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

PER CURIAM.

Panel consisting of Judges COLLINS, GRIFFIN, and MURRY.