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. Kareem Abdullah KIRK
¶ 1 Kareem Abdullah Kirk (“Defendant”) appeals from an order denying his motion to locate and preserve evidence and for post-conviction DNA testing. We affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2 Defendant was convicted of abduction of a child and four counts of statutory sexual offense. On direct appeal, this Court found no error in the jury's conviction, but vacated the judgment entered thereon for resentencing. See State v. Kirk, 221 N.C. App. 245, 725 S.E.2d 923 (2012) (unpublished).
¶ 3 On 26 February 2020, Defendant filed a pro se motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. The motion was denied without hearing by written order entered 19 June 2020. Defendant filed a pro se written notice of appeal in the trial court 9 July 2020.
II. Anders Brief
¶ 4 Counsel appointed to represent Defendant on appeal from the DNA order states she is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Counsel asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has 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 documents necessary to do so.
¶ 5 Defendant has filed a pro se brief with this Court. Based on our independent review of the record, his arguments have no merit.
III. Conclusion
¶ 6 In accordance with Anders and Kinch, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues related to the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. We are unable to find any prejudicial error concerning the trial court's DNA order and conclude Defendant's appeal is wholly frivolous. The trial court's order is affirmed. It is so ordered.
AFFIRMED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
TYSON, Judge.
Judges INMAN and GORE concur.
Response sent, thank you
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. COA21-531
Decided: September 06, 2022
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)