{ "id": 551050, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT EARL CHANCE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chance", "decision_date": "1998-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 247PA96", "first_page": "566", "last_page": "568", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "347 N.C. 566" } ], "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": "386 U.S. 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 L. Ed. 2d 754", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "408 U.S. 937", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782880, 1782721, 1782787, 1782947, 1782890, 1782763, 1782892, 1782990, 1782840, 1782802, 1782708, 1782743, 1782808, 1782778, 1782907, 1782748 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0937-05", "/us/408/0937-12", "/us/408/0937-07", "/us/408/0937-08", "/us/408/0937-04", "/us/408/0937-11", "/us/408/0937-10", "/us/408/0937-03", "/us/408/0937-14", "/us/408/0937-02", "/us/408/0937-15", "/us/408/0937-13", "/us/408/0937-01", "/us/408/0937-09", "/us/408/0937-06", "/us/408/0937-16" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563250 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 S.E.2d 665", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4688200 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182629 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "744" }, { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0738-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 258, "char_count": 4341, "ocr_confidence": 0.718, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08, "percentile": 0.3173017036900607 }, "sha256": "c5683da5c7af27731a15c61e3214e156e8446bb61245ec9021cec2fbb40d87e9", "simhash": "1:f36d7028a6a01682", "word_count": 730 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:32:58.211595+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT EARL CHANCE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant appeals from a sentence of life in prison imposed after he was convicted of first-degree murder in a case in which the State did not seek the death penalty. The evidence favorable to the State showed that the defendant shot his wife to death with a 12-gauge shotgun in the presence of two witnesses.\nThe defendant\u2019s attorney has filed a brief in which she says she \u201chas diligently researched the issues and cannot, in good faith, argue any grouping of exceptions or assignments of error.\u201d She has also sent the record and transcript of the trial to the defendant and advised him that she has assigned as error that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of first-degree murder. She has advised the defendant further that he may file a brief with this Court making whatever arguments he desires to make. The defendant has filed what he denominates a motion for appropriate relief, which we shall treat as a brief.\nWe hold that defendant\u2019s counsel has complied with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). She stated in her brief that she could not in good faith argue any assignments of error. \u201cThis is tantamount to a conclusion that the appeal is wholly frivolous.\u201d State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 102, 331 S.E.2d 665, 666 (1985). She also advised the defendant that he may file a brief raising any points he desires to raise. This is what is required by Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 498.\nWe agree with the conclusion of the defendant\u2019s attorney that it is frivolous to argue that there was not sufficient evidence to support a conviction of first-degree murder. There was evidence that the defendant entered the home of his mother-in-law carrying a 12-gauge shotgun and shot his wife to death in front of two witnesses without any threat from his wife to him. This evidence supports a conviction of first-degree murder. State v. Hamby, 276 N.C. 674, 174 S.E.2d 385 (1970), death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 937, 33 L. Ed. 2d 754 (1972).\nThe defendant argues in his pro se brief that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. He bases this on what he says was his counsel\u2019s failure to properly perfect his appeal and \u201cimproper preparation.\u201d As to the perfection of the appeal, the defendant\u2019s counsel gave notice of appeal and petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which was allowed. No more than this is required in perfecting an appeal. As to what the defendant calls \u201cimproper preparation,\u201d he does not say what was not proper about his attorney\u2019s preparation.\nIn accordance with our duty under Anders, we have examined the record and the transcript of the trial. From this examination, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous.\nNO ERROR.", "type": "majority", "author": "WEBB, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Teresa L. Harris, Associate Attorney General, for the State.", "Regina A. Moore for defendant-appellant.", "Robert Earl Chance, defendant, pro se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT EARL CHANCE\nNo. 247PA96\n(Filed 6 February 1998)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 318 (NCI4th)\u2014 representation of defendant on appeal \u2014 compliance with Anders v. California\nDefendant\u2019s counsel on appeal from a first-degree murder conviction complied with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, where she filed a brief stating that she could not in good faith argue any assignments of error, sent the record and transcript of the trial to defendant and advised him that she had assigned as error that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of first-degree murder, and advised defendant further that he could file a brief with the Supreme Court making whatever arguments he desired to make. \u2022\n2. Homicide \u00a7 232 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIt is frivolous to argue that there was insufficient evidence to support defendant\u2019s conviction of first-degree murder where the evidence tended to show that defendant entered the home of his mother-in-law carrying a 12-gauge shotgun and shot his wife to death in front of two witnesses without any threat from his wife to him.\nOn writ of certiorari from a judgment entered by Griffin, J., on 25 April 1995 in Superior Court, Martin County, sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. Calendared for argument in the Supreme Court 9 September 1997; determined on the briefs without oral argument.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Teresa L. Harris, Associate Attorney General, for the State.\nRegina A. Moore for defendant-appellant.\nRobert Earl Chance, defendant, pro se." }, "file_name": "0566-01", "first_page_order": 606, "last_page_order": 608 }