State v Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA04-479 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 October 2004 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Rowan County Nos. 03 CRS 50435 - 50439 REGINALD LAMORAS BROWN Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 16 October 2003 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in Rowan County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 October 2004. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Marc Bernstein, for the State. Haakon Thorsen, for defendant-appellant. TYSON, Judge. Reginald Lamoras Brown ( defendant ) was convicted of five counts of breaking or entering and two counts of larceny after breaking or entering. The trial court entered judgment thereon and sentenced defendant to two consecutive terms of 151 to 191 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals. I. Anders Review Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any 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 -2has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant by letter dated 7 July 2001 of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court. A reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. II. Conclusion We have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear. We have been unable to find any prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. No error. Judges WYNN and GEER concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
