State v. Sellers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. NO. COA14-362 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 August 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Davidson County No. 11 CRS 53249 KELVIN LEANDER SELLERS Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 15 May 2013 by Judge Kevin M. Bridges in Davidson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Mary Carla Hollis, for the State. Gilda C. Rodriguez for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Defendant Kelvin Leander Sellers appeals from the 15 May 2013 judgment entered after he pled guilty to financial card theft. 7 to The trial court sentenced defendant to an active term of 9 months imprisonment, set to run concurrently prison term defendant was serving in another case. appeals. with a Defendant -2Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its prejudicial error. own review of the record for possible Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. No error. Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
