State v. Mills
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-867 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Mecklenburg County Nos. 10 CRS 061291, 238763-64, 238766-67, 238769-70, 238772-73 MARTIN CORNELIUS MILLS, Defendant. Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 2 April 2013 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 November 2013. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kathleen Assistant Attorney General, for the State. N. Bolton, Richard Croutharmel, for defendant appellant. MARTIN, Chief Judge. On 20 May 2011, a judgment was entered against defendant, Martin Cornelius Mills, upon jury verdicts for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana, sale of cocaine, sale of marijuana, and having attained the status of a habitual felon. court consolidated all the offenses into one The trial judgment and -2sentenced defendant as a Class C felon to a term of 146 to 185 months imprisonment. State v. Mills, This __ N.C. Court App. found __, no 723 error appeal. 584 S.E.2d on (2012) (unpublished). On 29 November 2012, defendant filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief ( MAR ) in superior court. that he was entitled to relief because Defendant argued one of the three convictions used to support his habitual felon indictment was subsequently vacated due to a defect in the bill of information. On 4 March 2013, the trial court granted the MAR, vacated defendant s habitual felon conviction, and ordered resentencing on the substantive felonies. entered judgment on the On 2 April 2013, the trial court substantive felonies and sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 20 to 24, 25 to 30, 20 to 24, and 25 to 30 months imprisonment. 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 -3U.S. 738, 744, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 498 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 103, 331 S.E.2d 665, 666-67 (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 HUNTER, JR. and DILLON 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.
