NO. COA02-1292

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Wake County
                                Nos. 01 CRS 97483-84
CHERYL M. PARTRIDGE                        01 CRS 105605-06

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 May 2002 by Judge Stafford G. Bullock in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 June 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Director William M. Polk, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellant.

    
    TYSON, Judge.

    On 31 May 2002, Cheryl M. Partridge (“defendant”) pled guilty to three counts of trafficking in opiates and one count of embezzlement. The offenses were consolidated for judgment and defendant was sentenced pursuant to G.S. 90-95(H)(4)(c) to a term of 225 to 279 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has filed an Anders brief in which she indicates she has been unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a good faith argument for relief on appeal. She requests this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also filed documentation with the Court showing that she compliedwith the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of her right to file written arguments with the Court and providing her with a copy of the documents pertinent to her appeal.
    The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal claiming the defendant had received the presumptive sentence and therefore had no appeal of right. The motion is allowed. See State v. Willis, 92 N.C. App. 494, 496, 374 S.E.2d 613, 615 (1988). Accordingly, because defendant has no right to appeal, she is not entitled to review pursuant to Anders. See Kinch, 314 N.C. App. at 102, 331 S.E.2d at 667 (“Court must determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.”).
    While the appeal is dismissed, we grant certiorari to hear the case on its merits. Defendant contends that the Court should consider whether she rendered substantial assistance and should have received a sentence less than the mandatory minimum sentence and fine pursuant to G.S. 90-95. We disagree. Defendant admitted in court that the help she offered did not rise to the level of substantial assistance. Thus, defendant has failed to show any abuse of discretion. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.     Affirmed.
    Judges WYNN and STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***