State v. Wilson - Probation Revocation Appeal
Summary
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to revoke Felix Wilson Jr.'s probation due to a new criminal offense. The court found no meritorious issues upon independent examination of the record, upholding the activation of the underlying sentence.
What changed
The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a non-precedential opinion affirming the trial court's judgment revoking Defendant Felix Wilson Jr.'s probation. The revocation was based on the finding that the defendant committed a new criminal offense, leading to the activation of his original sentence of 9 to 20 months imprisonment. The appellate court conducted an independent examination of the record, as requested by the defendant's counsel under Anders v. California, and found no meritorious issues to support the appeal.
This decision means the defendant's probation remains revoked, and the activated sentence will be served. For legal professionals and courts, this case serves as an example of the appellate review process for probation revocation appeals, particularly when counsel finds no substantial grounds for appeal. The non-precedential nature of the opinion means it cannot be cited as controlling authority but may be permitted for specific purposes under Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Source document (simplified)
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.
Feb. 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State v. Wilson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 25-765
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Syllabus
Anders brief
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA25-765
Filed 18 February 2026
Craven County, Nos. 23CR000396-240, 22CR050911-240
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
FELIX WILSON JR., Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 February 2025 by Judge Clint
D. Rowe in Craven County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January
2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Brittany
Brown Walton, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Emily
Holmes Davis, for Defendant-Appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court found Defendant Felix Wilson, Jr., violated N.C.G.S. § 15A-
1343(b)(1) by committing a new criminal offense and thus revoked his probation. The
trial court activated the underlying sentence of 9 to 20 months imprisonment.
Defendant timely filed written notice of appeal from judgment revoking probation.
STATE V. WILSON
Opinion of the Court
Defendant's counsel filed a brief on appeal pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 (1985). Defense counsel requests
this court conduct an independent examination of the record for any prejudicial error.
Though counsel was unable to identify any discernable issue with sufficient
merit to support a meaningful argument on appeal, counsel “respectfully asks this
[c]ourt to conduct a full examination of the record for any prejudicial error and to
determine if any issue has been overlooked.” In accordance with Anders and Kinch,
counsel also “advised [Defendant] of his right to file his own arguments” and provided
Defendant with a copy of the brief, the trial transcript, and the record on appeal.
Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we are tasked with independently examining
the entire proceedings to determine whether Defendant's appeal is wholly frivolous.
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102–03 (“[W]e [ ] 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.”
(citation omitted)).
After conducting a full and independent examination of the record, including
the potential issues presented by Defendant's counsel, we hold the record contains no
meritorious issue which would entitle Defendant to relief.
AFFIRMED.
Panel consisting of Chief Judge DILLON and Judges GORE and FREEMAN.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-2-
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when North Carolina Court of Appeals publishes new changes.