State v. Sullivan
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA15-343 Filed: 20 October 2015 Guilford County, Nos. 14CRS066022, 14CRS024198 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE SULLIVAN Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 22 August 2014 by Judge R. Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 October 2015. Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Susannah P. Holloway, for the State. Brock & Meece, P.A., by C. Scott Holmes, for the Defendant. DILLON, Judge. A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to attaining habitual felon status. The trial court arrested judgment on the assault with a deadly weapon conviction and sentenced Defendant as an habitual felon to 127 to 165 months of imprisonment for the robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal. STATE V. SULLIVAN Opinion of the Court Counsel appointed to represent Defendant directs this Court’s attention to possible issues on appeal, but acknowledges the issues are not sufficient to merit a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Counsel 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, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (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 for him 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 therein. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is without merit. NO ERROR. Chief Judge McGEE and Judge HUNTER, JR., concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -2-
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.
