An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Proced ure.

NO. COA02-614


Filed: 21 January 2003


         v.                        Union County
                                Nos. 01 CRS 4128-9

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 2 January 2002 by Judge Sanford L. Steelman, Jr., in Union County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 December 2002.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General John W. Congleton, for the State.

    Kay S. Murray, for defendant-appellant.

    HUDSON, Judge.

    Defendant Michael Rushing was charged with possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and sale or delivery of cocaine. A jury found defendant guilty of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and sale of cocaine. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of ten to twelve months imprisonment and sixteen to twenty months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel states that she is “unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief” and asks this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error.    Counsel has 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, 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 have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none.
    No error.
    Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge MCCULLOUGH concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***