State v. Toomer
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-541 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 October 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Durham County Nos. 10 CRS 60247-49 v. DOMINIQUE DESHAWN TOOMER Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 28 June 2012 by Judge William O. Smith in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy General Sharon Patrick-Wilson, for the State. Attorney Paul F. Herzog for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, Robert C., Judge. On 28 June 2012, defendant Dominique Deshawn Toomer was found guilty by a jury of three counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon. In the first judgment, defendant s robbery with weapon a dangerous consolidated with drug earlier year and that imprisonment. For conviction offenses he the was in defendant sentenced robbery 10 with CRS was 60247 convicted to 67 to 90 a dangerous was of months weapon -2convictions in 10 CRS 60248 and 10 CRS 60249, the trial court sentenced defendant to two additional consecutive terms of 67 to 90 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals. After careful review, we find no error. 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. NO ERROR. Judges BRYANT and McCULLOUGH concur. -3Report 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.
