State v. Sharp
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA15-759 Filed: 16 February 2016 Wayne County, Nos. 11 CRS 51064; 12 CRS 51725, 51727; 13 CRS 54696 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT SHARP Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 2 February 2015 by Judge Arnold O. Jones II in Wayne County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 February 2016. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Peggy S. Vincent, for the State. Michelle FormyDuval Lynch, for defendant-appellant. CALABRIA, Judge. Christopher Scott Sharp (“defendant”) appeals from judgments revoking his probationary sentence. We affirm. Defendant pled guilty on 1 November 2012 to two counts of felony possession of stolen goods and one count of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Pursuant to defendant’s plea agreement, the trial court consolidated defendant’s convictions into two judgments and sentenced him to consecutive terms of a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 19 months in the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Division STATE V. SHARP Opinion of the Court of Adult Correction. The court then suspended defendant’s sentences and placed him on supervised probation for 36 months. As a special condition of probation, the trial court ordered defendant to enroll in and complete a GED or high school diploma program. Defendant also entered a guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 21 months, suspended the sentence, and placed defendant on supervised probation for 30 months. Defendant’s probation officer filed probation violation reports on 31 December 2014, alleging that defendant had absconded from supervision; failed to pay amounts due for fees, costs, fines and restitution; and failed to enroll in a GED program. At the probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation as alleged in the violation reports. The court found defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation and entered three judgments revoking defendant’s probation. The court sentenced defendant to terms of imprisonment identical to those imposed in the judgments entered upon the stolen goods, marijuana, and firearms charges. All three sentences were set to run consecutively. Defendant appeals. Defendant’s appointed counsel was unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asked this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of -2- STATE V. SHARP Opinion of the Court 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 filed no pro se arguments, and a reasonable time for him to have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders and Kinch, 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. AFFIRMED. Judges BRYANT and STEPHENS concur. Report per Rule 30(e). -3-
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.
