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. COA01-1337
                                          &nb sp; 
                                          &nb sp; 
Filed: 21 May 2002


         v.                        Wake County
                                No. 98 CRS 10808

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 April 1999 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 April 2002.
    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General     Floyd M. Lewis, for the State.

    Ligon and Hinton, by Lemuel W. Hinton, for defendant- appellant.

    MARTIN, Judge.

    By a proper bill of indictment dated 19 February 1998, defendant was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine by transportation, possession, and sale and delivery. A jury found defendant guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine by transportation, possession, sale or delivery of 400 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of 175 months and a maximum of 219 months. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel states that he “finds no basis to pursue the matters previously assigned as error[,]” and asks this Court to review the record for any prejudicial error.
    Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that hehas 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 this Court and providing him with 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 must fully examine the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none.
    We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
    No error.
    Judges HUNTER and BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***