STATE v. NOBLITT (2025)

Defendant David Allen Noblitt appeals from judgment revoking his probation. He asks this Court to conduct an independent review of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), to determine whether prejudicial error occurred during his probation revocation hearing. We find no non-frivolous issue and dismiss the appeal.

I. Background

On 16 August 2023, Defendant pled guilty to three charges: assault with a deadly weapon with intent to cause serious injury, injury to real property, and resisting a public officer. The trial court consolidated the charges and sentenced him to 25 to 45 months in prison, suspended for 36 months of supervised probation. On 22 November 2023, a violation report was filed, alleging that Defendant had committed a new crime–simple assault–while on probation.

At the hearing on the violation report, Defendant testified that on the day of the assault, he had asked his father to buy him a drink, and his father bought him a 20-ounce Sun Drop. After drinking it, Defendant became ill. Suspecting his mother of poisoning him, Defendant called 9-1-1. While on the phone, Defendant's father was screaming in his face and tried to kick him. Defendant admitted that he grabbed his father's legs, but claimed it was in self-defense. The State informed the trial court that Defendant's parents were generally concerned for his mental health, and that Defendant had previously assaulted and “severely injured” a neighbor with a baseball bat.

The trial court found that an assault took place and that it was “reasonably satisfied under the law that [Defendant] violated probation and that he committed an offense.” As a result, the trial court activated Defendant's sentence of 25 to 45 months’ imprisonment.

II. Analysis

Defendant's counsel is “unable to identify an 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 shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 (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.

We need not conduct Anders review of post-conviction proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987); see also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) and State v. Coltrane, 307 N.C. 511 (1983). Nonetheless, in our discretion, we have conducted an independent review of the record. Based on our review, we are unable to discern any non-frivolous issue and accordingly dismiss the appeal. See Kinch, 314 N.C. at 106 (“Upon our examination of all of the proceedings, we hold the appeal to be wholly frivolous and subject to dismissal.”).

DISMISSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

PER CURIAM.

Panel consisting of: Judges COLLINS, GRIFFIN, and MURRY.