STATE v. HUDSON (2022)

¶ 1 Defendant Jeremy Hudson appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction for misdemeanor simple assault. Counsel for Defendant filed an Anders brief on Defendant's behalf. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 2 On 21 October 2020, following a bench trial in Brunswick County District Court, Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor simple assault. Defendant then appealed for a de novo trial in Brunswick County Superior Court. Following another bench trial in superior court, Defendant was again found guilty of misdemeanor simple assault. The trial court then entered a judgment upon Defendant's conviction, and Defendant filed a notice of appeal pro se from the trial court's judgment. Defendant's counsel later filed a formal notice of appeal.

¶ 3 Counsel for Defendant has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), asking this Court to “conduct an independent review of the record ․ to determine whether any prejudicial error occurred in the trial proceedings.” In his brief, Defendant's counsel has raised two potential issues for our review. However, neither of the proposed issues has any merit based on our review of the record. Defendant is therefore not entitled to relief on the bases proposed by Defendant's counsel.

¶ 4 “Under our review pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.” State v. Frink, 177 N.C. App. 144, 145, 627 S.E.2d 472, 473 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have conducted a full and independent examination of the record as required by Anders and Kinch and conclude that the record contains no meritorious issue entitling Defendant to relief. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Judges TYSON and CARPENTER concur.