State v. Bullock
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Procedur e. NO. COA14-1035 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 March 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Durham County Nos. 10 CRS 56171, 11 CRS 3849 VICTOR LAMONT BULLOCK Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 March 2014 by Judge W. Osmond Smith in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 February 2015. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Mary Carla Babb, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Jon H. Hunt, for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. On 2 October 2012, a jury found defendant Victor Lamont Bullock guilty of malicious conduct by a prisoner and resisting a public officer, and defendant admitted through his counsel to being a habitual felon. The trial court sentenced defendant as a habitual felon to a term of 127 to 162 months imprisonment for his conviction for malicious conduct by a prisoner, as well as a -2concurrent term of 60 days imprisonment for resisting a public officer. Defendant appealed, and this Court found no error in defendant’s trial and convictions for his substantive offenses, but found that the trial court had erred in accepting defendant’s admission to attaining the status of a habitual felon. State v. Bullock, ___ N.C. App. ___, 753 S.E.2d 741 (Dec. 3, 2013) (No. COA13-574) (unpublished). conviction for attaining This Court reversed the status of a remanded for a new trial on that charge. defendant’s habitual felon and Id. On remand, defendant entered a guilty plea to attaining the status of a habitual felon. Pursuant to defendant’s plea arrangement with the State, the trial court sentenced defendant as a habitual felon imprisonment prisoner. to for his a mitigated conviction term for of 76 malicious to 101 months conduct by a Defendant appeals. Counsel appointed to represent defendant 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 own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he 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), -3by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and by providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. On 17 November and 8 December 2014, defendant filed pro se arguments with this Court, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the indictment charging him with attaining habitual felon status to correct the date of one of defendant’s prior convictions. Our appellate courts, however, have previously rejected defendant’s arguments and permitted such amendments. 556, 558 indictment See State v. Price, 310 N.C. 596, 598, 313 S.E.2d (1984) is substantially (holding only alter a that “change the charge a in prohibited the set amendment indictment forth in the to which an would indictment” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Hargett, 148 N.C. App. 688, 693, 559 S.E.2d 282, 286 (2002) (holding that an amendment indictment to correct does indictment). not a conviction constitute a date on a substantial habitual change felon to the Defendant’s arguments are thus overruled. 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. -4No error. Chief Judge MCGEE and Judge STEPHENS 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.
