A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).

NO. COA01-944


Filed: 5 March 2002


         v.                        Beaufort County
                                No.    00 CRS 3538

    Appeal from judgment entered 8 March 2001 by Judge James R. Vosburgh in Beaufort County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 February 2002.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.

    Dennis M. Kilcoyne for defendant appellant.


    On 6 December 2000, Wallace Cornelius Burrus ("defendant") was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, resisting a public officer, and related crimes. The trial court consolidated the offenses, imposed a suspended sentence of eight to ten months' imprisonment, and placed defendant on probation for a period of thirty-six months. On 27 February 2001, defendant was served with a probation violation report, which alleged that defendant had missed appointments with his probation officer and drug treatment program, tested positive for marijuana use on five occasions, failed to secure employment, and failed to satisfy the monetary conditions of his probation. At his revocation hearing,defendant waived his right to representation by counsel and allowed the probation officer to summarize the evidence against him. When asked whether he could refute the charges, defendant responded, “No[,]” but added that he had found employment. He ascribed his positive drug tests to “eatin[g] sesame seeds or whatever[.]” Finding defendant in willful violation of the terms of probation, the trial court activated defendant's sentence. Defendant now appeals to this Court.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has filed an Anders brief indicating that he is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. He asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has filed documentation with the Court showing that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (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 the Court and providing him with a copy of the documents pertinent to his appeal. Defendant has filed no additional arguments of his own with this Court, and a reasonable time for him to 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 and whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is frivolous, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trialcourt.
    Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge McCULLOUGH concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***