IN RE: C.S.B. (2023)

Respondent C.S.B. appeals from an involuntary commitment custody order finding him incapable to proceed after he was charged with a violent crime. Counsel for Respondent filed an Anders brief on behalf of Respondent, asking this Court to conduct an independent review of the proceedings to determine whether any meritorious issues exist, and Respondent submitted a pro se brief. We find no meritorious issues and affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural History

In 2020 and 2021, Respondent was charged with several criminal offenses including assault on a female, common law false imprisonment, and disorderly conduct. Respondent was arrested for assault and false imprisonment after he shoved his mother to the ground with both hands and prevented her from using her phone or leaving the house. Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct during a separate incident at a church.

In September 2021 and June 2022, forensic psychologists examined Respondent and determined he lacked capacity to proceed with a criminal trial on his charges. Respondent's counsel filed a motion for a capacity hearing on 5 July 2022. The capacity hearing took place on 7 July 2022. At the capacity hearing, the trial court determined Respondent lacked capacity to proceed and entered an involuntary commitment custody order. Respondent timely appeals.

II. Analysis

Counsel for Respondent 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), indicating that she was “unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.” Counsel requests that this Court “conduct a full examination of the record for any prejudicial error and to determine if any issue has been overlooked.” In her brief, Counsel presented one potential issue: “Whether the trial court erred by finding [Respondent] was charged with a violent crime under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1003(a) in the involuntary commitment custody order.” Counsel demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch by advising Respondent of his right to file arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary to do so.

Respondent filed a pro se brief with this Court, “only appeal[ing] the finding of being dangerous” on grounds that the “court did not use any facts.” Based on our review of the record, Respondent's proposed issue has no merit.

“Pursuant to Anders, this Court must now determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.” Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102, 331 S.E.2d at 667. In accordance with Anders, “we [ ] review the legal points appearing in the record, transcript, and briefs, not for the purpose of determining their merits (if any) but to determine whether they are wholly frivolous.” Id. at 102–03, 331 S.E.2d at 667 (citation omitted). Our full review of the record has not revealed a meritorious issue entitling Respondent to relief. Including our consideration of the legal points presented by Respondent's counsel and by Respondent, we conclude that this appeal presents no issue entitling Respondent to relief.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Judges ARROWOOD and HAMPSON concur.