Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Brawley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-723

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Anders brief, trafficking by possession of fentanyl.

Combined Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-723

Filed 18 March 2026

Burke County, No. 23CRS203643-110

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

WILLIAM LAVAR BRAWLEY, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 December 2024 by Judge Carla

Archie in Burke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 January

2026.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Scott T.
Stroud, for the State-appellee.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender David S.
Hallen, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant William Lavar Brawley appeals of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§

7A-27(b) and 15A-1444(a). Defendant was convicted of trafficking by possession of

four grams or more, but less than fourteen grams of acetyl fentanyl (opioid), and one

count of trafficking by possession of more than twenty-eight grams of fentanyl

(opioid). Defendant was sentenced to 225 months’ to 282 months’ imprisonment.
STATE V. BRAWLEY

Opinion of the Court

Pursuant to Anders v. California and State v. Kinch, defendant requests this

Court’s review of the record for any meritorious issues. Anders, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);

Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 (1985). Defense counsel filed an Anders brief stating upon review

he was unable to identify any issue sufficient to support a meaningful argument for

relief. Defense counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief

with this Court and provided a copy of the appellant brief, the trial transcript, the

record on appeal, and this Court’s mailing address. See Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102.

Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

In compliance with Anders and Kinch, defense counsel submitted the following

issues for this Court to consider for potential prejudice: (1) whether there was

sufficient evidence to support a denial of the motion to dismiss both charges; (2)

whether the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress; and (3)

whether the trial court imposed a sentence authorized by statute. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102. We consider these issues for the purpose of

determining “whether they are wholly frivolous.” Kinch, 314 N.C. at 103.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient

evidence on the two trafficking charges. The trial court considers all evidence

submitted in the “light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of

every reasonable inference” to determine whether there is “substantial evidence of

each essential element of the offense charged, and of the defendant being the

perpetrator of such offense.” State v. Garrett, 246 N.C. App. 651, 654 (2016) (cleaned

-2-
STATE V. BRAWLEY

Opinion of the Court

up). The State presented evidence that law enforcement discovered approximately

six ounces of fentanyl, and another thirty-three ounces of fentanyl in a small Crown

Royal bag that defendant was seen removing from his clothing while in police custody.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the traffic stop.

Law enforcement may conduct traffic stops when they have a reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity and for traffic violations. See State v. Johnson, 370 N.C. 32, 34

(2017); State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441–42 (1994). A traffic stop remains a

reasonable seizure if it is not “prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to

complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S.

348, 350–51 (2015).

The trial court found that law enforcement conducted a traffic stop based upon

reasonable suspicion of a window tint violation. While law enforcement conducted

the traffic stop, a K-9 performed an open air sniff of the vehicle. Upon positive alert

from the K-9, law enforcement searched the vehicle and defendant. Law enforcement

discovered handguns in a backpack by defendant’s seat, and multiple containers of

fentanyl on defendant’s person. Law enforcement wrote a ticket for a window tint

violation at the end of the traffic stop. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied

defendant’s motion to suppress.

Lastly, the trial court properly sentenced defendant based upon statutory

mandates. According to section 90-95(h)(4), a defendant shall be punished as a Class

-3-
STATE V. BRAWLEY

Opinion of the Court

F felon for possessing four grams or more, but less than 14 grams of fentanyl;1 and

that the defendant shall be punished as a Class C felon for possessing twenty-eight

grams or more of fentanyl with a minimum term of 225 months’ and a maximum term

of 282 months’ imprisonment. N.C.G.S. § 90-95(h)(4) (2022). Defendant received a

Class F felony and Class C felony for both trafficking charges and a consolidated term

of 225 months’ to 282 months’ imprisonment. Therefore, the trial court properly

sentenced defendant in accordance with the statutory mandates. Our review of the

record yields no meritorious issue. Therefore, these issues are “wholly frivolous.”

Kinch, 314 N.C. at 105.

Having conducted an independent review of the record according to the

obligations set out within Anders and Kinch, we determine defendant received a fair

trial free of prejudicial error.

NO ERROR.

Before a panel consisting of Judges HAMPSON, GORE, and GRIFFIN.

Report per Rule 30(e).

1 Fentanyl is recognized “as either an opiate or opioid.” State v. Gibbs, 384 N.C. 654, 655 (2023).

-4-