An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA02-926


Filed: 18 March 2003


         v.                        Wilkes County
                                Nos. 01CRS051468-71
TIMOTHY LEON JOHNSTON                    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 February 2002 by Judge Lindsay R. Davis in Wilkes County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 March 2003.

    Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Angel E. Gray, for the State.

    Thorsen Law Office, by Haakon Thorsen, for defendant- appellant.

    HUNTER, Judge.

    On 10 December 2001, Timothy Leon Johnston (“defendant”) pled no contest pursuant to a plea agreement to three counts of trafficking in cocaine, one count of sale of cocaine, and one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine. Prayer for judgment was entered and the case was continued until 4 February 2002. On 11 February 2002, judgments were entered on the convictions. Defendant was sentenced to a term of thirty-five to forty-two months imprisonment for one of the trafficking convictions. The remaining convictions were consolidated for judgment and defendant was sentenced to a consecutive term ofthirty-five to forty-two months imprisonment. Defendant appeals. 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.
    On 14 October 2002, defendant filed written arguments with this Court. Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Defendant argues that he was pressured into accepting the plea agreement and received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant also contends that he was not given the opportunity to comply with the terms of the plea agreement, in which he was to give substantial assistance to the police in their investigation in exchange for leniency. Defendant further argues that he was not guilty of the crime charged, but was entrapped.
    Initially, we note that defendant is not entitled to review of his conviction since he pled no contest. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a) (2001). Defendant is also not entitled to review of his sentence since he was sentenced within the presumptive range. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a1). Thus, defendant's right to appellate review is limited to a review of whether the sentence imposed resulted from an incorrect calculation of defendant's prior record level. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2)(1). However, defendant does not seek review of his prior record level calculation.
    Furthermore, to the extent that defendant is arguing that the State did not comply with the plea agreement, defendant is not entitled to appellate review because he has not made a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See State v. Pimental, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 568 S.E.2d 867, 870, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002).
    Additionally, with regards to defendant's argument that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant fails to make his claims with any specificity. Furthermore, defendant's claim is best raised upon a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court. See State v. Dockery, 78 N.C. App. 190, 192, 336 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1985) (“[t]he accepted practice is to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings, rather than direct appeal”). Thus, we decline to review defendant's argument.
     In addition to defendant's arguments, this Court has reviewed the record for other possible prejudicial error and has found none. Accordingly, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    No error.
    Judges BRYANT and ELMORE concur.    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***