An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA02-1098
            
                                          &nb sp; 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
        
                                          &nb sp; 
Filed: 6 May 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Davidson County
                                No. 01 CrS 6132
KENNETH WAYNE GARDNER

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 March 2002 by Judge Kimberly S. Taylor in Davidson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 April 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Deborrah L. Newton, for the State.

    Haakon Thorsen for defendant-appellant.

    MARTIN, Judge.

    Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest to escape from the state prison system and habitual felon status. In his brief defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred by accepting his plea to habitual felon status on the ground no evidence was presented of any qualifying convictions; and (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel was not prepared for trial. Alternatively, he seeks review of these issues by a petition for a writ of certiorari.
    When a defendant pleads guilty or no contest, appellate review of right is circumscribed to certain narrow issues related to sentencing, to review of the denial of a motion to suppress, or to review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea. State v.Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 568 S.E.2d 867, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002). Because the issues defendant purports to raise do not fall within these confines, defendant is not entitled to appellate review of them and the appeal must be dismissed. Id. at 76, 568 S.E.2d at 871-72. With respect to defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari, our authority to issue a writ of certiorari is limited to: (1) when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action, (2) when no right of appeal exists from an interlocutory order, or (3) when review is sought of an order denying a motion for appropriate relief. Id. at 76-77, 568 S.E.2d at 872. None of these situations is present in the case at bar. We are therefore compelled to deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
    Dismissed.
    Judges McCULLOUGH and CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***