{
  "id": 2552529,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT C. DOBSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dobson",
  "decision_date": "1994-07-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 149A93",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "468",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "337 N.C. 464"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "15 ALR4th 582",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 ALR4th 27",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 S.E.2d 276",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2541865
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "744"
        },
        {
          "page": "498"
        },
        {
          "page": "744"
        },
        {
          "page": "498"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 457,
    "char_count": 7685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08210575211141653
    },
    "sha256": "bc1c8b228118fc7dfb53d44f93b7599b08df416d024a8290eaa4deb900ec05da",
    "simhash": "1:d7e5f3b833461193",
    "word_count": 1241
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:06.194618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT C. DOBSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EXUM, Chief Justice.\nDefendant was convicted in a noncapital trial of first-degree murder pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-17 (1983). From judgment of life imprisonment he appealed to this Court. On 10 May 1993 defendant\u2019s counsel filed a brief on behalf of defendant. Defendant\u2019s counsel presented defendant\u2019s assignment of error with respect to \u201cthe signing and entry of the judgment against the defendant\u201d but counsel himself found \u201cno errors in the trial of this case with regard to any issue of law.\u201d Instead, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), counsel requested this Court to review the proceedings for any error prejudicial to defendant. We find no error.\nI.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: On the evening of 17 April 1992 Oliver Cleo Kimbrough was playing cards and drinking alcohol with Willa Jean Miller, Fannie Johnson, and Ralph Ross in the dining room of a private home in which alcoholic beverages were sold. Defendant Dwight Dobson worked selling drinks at the house and was in the kitchen with Sheila Hairston and Maybelle Scott while the others played cards.\nDefendant walked into the dining room and demanded a \u201ccut\u201d of the money from the card game. The card players responded by telling him the game was over. Defendant immediately asked Kimbrough if he \u201cwant[ed] to die\u201d or was \u201cready to die\u201d or something to that effect. Kimbrough did not respond in any way, and, within a matter of seconds, defendant drew a pistol from his pants and shot Kimbrough in the chest, killing him.\nMiller and Johnson pleaded with defendant not to shoot Kimbrough again. Defendant chambered another round and pointed the pistol at Kimbrough\u2019s head. The women ran from the room. No more shots were fired.\nWinston-Salem police arrived at the scene of the shooting and apprehended defendant without resistance. Later that evening defendant and Ross cooperated with the police in retrieving the weapon used in the shooting.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show a different version of events. Defendant testified as follows:\nThere had been a history of altercations between himself and Kimbrough, including several incidents the night of the shooting. On that night, when defendant asked for a \u201ccut\u201d of the money, he and Kimbrough began to argue. Kimbrough threatened defendant with violence. Ross attempted to step between the two and prevent a fight. Defendant drew his pistol and told Kimbrough to sit down. Kimbrough repeatedly said to defendant, \u201cShoot me,\u201d while advancing on defendant in a threatening manner. Defendant attempted to retreat while Kimbrough continued to advance. Although defendant admitted shooting Kimbrough, he testified he never intended to do so. Defendant is easily startled by sudden movements, loud noises, and touching. When he pulled the gun he was only trying to make Kimbrough sit back down and leave him alone. He did not flee after the shooting because he did not believe he had done anything wrong. He admitted to the police he had shot Kimbrough.\nDefense witnesses testified to Kimbrough\u2019s violent reputation, his history of provoking confrontations with defendant, and his threatening advance on defendant the night of the shooting. Kimbrough had no weapon but was approximately six feet two inches tall and weighed about 275 pounds; defendant was about five feet eight inches tall and weighed 140 pounds.\nDuring the charge conference at the close of the evidence defendant requested that instructions be given to the jury regarding self-defense and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The trial court allowed the motions and instructed the jury on these charges and defenses as well as on the charges of first-degree murder and second-degree murder. The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.\nII.\nUnder Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 498, a defendant may appeal even if defendant\u2019s counsel has determined the case to be \u201cwholly frivolous.\u201d In such a situation counsel must submit a brief to the court \u201creferring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.\u201d Counsel must furnish the defendant with a copy of the brief, the transcript, and the record and inform the defendant of his or her right to raise any points he or she desires and of any time constraints related to such right. Id. at 744, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 498; State v. Randolph, 328 N.C. 724, 403 S.E.2d 276 (1991). Finally, the court conducts a full examination of all the proceedings, including the transcript, record, and briefs, for prejudicial error. State v. Randolph, 328 N.C. 724, 403 S.E.2d 276.\nIn the instant case defendant\u2019s counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders. Counsel has found no errors in the trial but has submitted a brief to this Court referring to defendant\u2019s contention that the signing and entry of the judgment against him was in error, a contention which \u201cmight arguably support the appeal.\u201d Counsel provided defendant with the State\u2019s brief, defendant\u2019s brief, and the record on appeal. Pursuant to an order of this Court, defendant was notified that he could file a brief on his own behalf, raising any arguments he wished to make. Defendant did not choose to do so. Finally, we conducted a complete examination of the proceedings to determine whether there was prejudicial error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nAfter thorough review of the transcript, record, and briefs, this Court finds no error warranting reversal of defendant\u2019s conviction. We find no error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nSufficient evidence existed at trial to warrant submission to the jury of each of the degrees of homicide actually submitted. The factual inconsistencies between the State\u2019s evidence and the defendant\u2019s evidence were for the jury to resolve. It resolved them against defendant.\nNO ERROR.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EXUM, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Mary Jill Ledford, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Laurel O. Boyles for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT C. DOBSON\nNo. 149A93\n(Filed 29 July 1994)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 318 (NCI4th)\u2014 noncapital first-degree murder \u2014 submitted under Anders \u2014 no error\nDefense counsel in a noncapital first-degree murder prosecution complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, where counsel found no errors in the trial but submitted a brief referring to defendant\u2019s contention that the signing and entry of the judgment against him was in error, a contention which \u201cmight arguably support the appeal\u201d; counsel provided defendant with the State\u2019s brief, defendant\u2019s brief, and the record on appeal; and defendant was notified that he could file a brief on his own behalf, raising any arguments he wished to make, but chose not to do so. The Supreme Court conducted a complete examination of the proceedings to determine whether there was prejudicial error in defendant\u2019s trial and found no error warranting reversal of defendant\u2019s conviction.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 752, 985-987.\nModern status of rules and standards in state courts as to adequacy of defense counsel\u2019s representation of criminal client. 2 ALR4th 27.\nAdequacy of defense counsel\u2019s representation of criminal client regarding appellate and postconviction remedies. 15 ALR4th 582.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from judgment imposing sentence of life imprisonment entered by Albright, J., at the 19 October 1992 Session of Superior Court, Forsyth County, upon a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Calendared for argument in the Supreme Court 13 September 1993; determined on the briefs without oral argument pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 30(d).\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Mary Jill Ledford, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nLaurel O. Boyles for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 492,
  "last_page_order": 496
}