Case ID: se2d_809/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DIETZ, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Angelo WHITEHEAD
    No. COA16-294-2
    Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
    Filed: February 6, 2018
    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Oliver G. Wheeler, IV, for the State.
    Unti & Smith, PLLC, Raleigh, by Sharon L. Smith, for defendant.
   DIETZ, Judge.

This case comes before us on remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider our previous decision in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Brice , --- N.C. ----, 806 S.E.2d 32 (2017).

On remand, this Court entered an order inviting the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing Brice 's impact on this appeal. The State submitted a supplemental brief asserting that "this case is materially indistinguishable from Brice , the decision there is controlling," and under Brice there is no error in the trial court's judgment.

Whitehead did not submit a supplemental brief. We interpret Whitehead's decision not to submit a supplemental brief as a concession that there are no non-frivolous arguments to distinguish this case from Brice . Having reviewed the record on our own initiative, we agree. Accordingly, under Brice , we find no error in the trial court's judgment.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge TYSON concur.