STATE v. SPICER (2025)

I. Background

Latonia Benetta Spicer (“Defendant”) appeals judgments entered upon jury verdicts convicting her of four misdemeanors. Defendant's counsel filed a brief 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). In accordance with Anders and Kinch, counsel advised Defendant of her right to file her own arguments and provided her with a copy of the brief, transcripts of proceedings, printed record on appeal, and this Court's mailing/filing address. Counsel has fully complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch. Id. Defendant has not filed any further arguments and a reasonable time for her to do so has passed. Counsel requests this Court to conduct an independent examination of the record for any prejudicial error or meritorious issue counsel may have overlooked.

Defendant's counsel raises the following issues, which may support Defendant's appeal of whether: (1) Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the drug-related misdemeanors should have been dismissed based on insufficiency of the evidence; (3) the drug possession indictment was sufficient; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to re-open evidence; (5) the trial court erred by refusing to expand upon the statutory definition of “delivery” as contained in the pattern jury instruction; and, (6) the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant at a prior record level III for misdemeanor sentencing.

II. Conclusion

We have conducted a full examination of the record as required by Anders and Kinch. We have reviewed the potential issues raised by Defendant's counsel and are unable to discern any reversible error. Defendant received a fair trial, free of reversible error.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

PER CURIAM.

Panel consisting of Judges STROUD, TYSON, and HAMPSON.