State
v.
Holmes

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.Dec 4, 2012
735 S.E.2d 633 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)

No. COA12–789.

2012-12-4

STATE of North Carolina v. Shonte Ramon HOLMES.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Laura E. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Hunt Law Group, P.C., by James A. Hunt, for defendant-appellant.


Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 25 January 2012 by Judge J. Carlton Cole in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 November 2012. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Laura E. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Hunt Law Group, P.C., by James A. Hunt, for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.


On 25 January 2012, defendant Shonte Ramon Holmes pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to habitual impaired driving and to having attained habitual felon status. The plea agreement provided that defendant would stipulate to the prior convictions which elevated him to habitual felon status, the State would dismiss all other charges, and defendant would be sentenced to a term of fifty to sixty-nine months imprisonment. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. From the judgment entered, 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, 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 therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Affirmed. Judges STROUD and HUNTER, JR. concur.


Report per Rule 30(e).