Status message

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Table of Contents

State v. Johnston, COA24-816, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Mar. 19, 2025)

Return To Search
Criminal Procedure > Appellate Issues > Miscellaneous Cases

In this Pitt County case, defendant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and felony fleeing to elude arrest; defense counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Court of Appeals found no error.

Defendant was arrested for speeding past a highway patrol officer, fleeing from the officer for several miles, and throwing something out of his window. Once defendant was pulled over, a search of the vehicle discovered cocaine and $1,100 in cash. Defendant came to trial in May 2023, where he was acquitted of driving while impaired and maintaining a vehicle for selling cocaine, but convicted of the other charges.

The Court of Appeals took up defendant’s appeal and conducted a review under Anders looking for any prejudicial error. The court considered the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for substitute counsel, whether defendant expressed a desire to represent himself, an overruled objection to testimony, and defendant’s opportunity to address the trial court regarding attorney’s fees, concluding that none of these issues represented error.