An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA02-1420

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 3 June 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                Cumberland County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 23478-79
        v.                            00 CRS 53461    & nbsp;                   
                                    00 CRS 58146                                 
SHAWN DEMETRIUS SINGLETARY                
                                    
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 14 May 2002 by Judge William C. Gore in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 May 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Beth S. Posner, for defendant-appellant.

    CALABRIA, Judge.

    Defendant was charged with four counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. After his pro se “Motion to Suppress and Release all Evidence and Supplement Motion to Dismiss Indictment” was denied by the trial court, defendant pled guilty to all charges without preserving the issue of the court's denial of his suppression motion. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, both parties were heard on the issue of sentencing, and the trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to four consecutive terms of 6-8 months imprisonment.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has filed an Andersbrief in which counsel states that she “has been unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support meaningful argument for relief on appeal.” She, therefore, asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also submitted documentation to the Court showing that she 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 the documents necessary for him to do so. In addition, acknowledging defendant's limited right of appeal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444, counsel asks that the Court treat this brief as a petition for writ of certiorari to review the additional issue of whether defendant's sentence is supported by the evidence. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A- 1444(a1)(2001)(providing that a defendant sentenced within the presumptive range of sentences is not entitled to appeal the issue of whether his sentence is supported by the evidence). To date, defendant has not filed any arguments on his behalf.
    At the outset, we note that the State has filed a motion to dismiss defendant's appeal. The State argues that defendant has no right to appeal to this Court, since he pled guilty, was determined by the trial court to have a prior record level of I, and was sentenced within the presumptive range. The State also notes that petitioner has neither reserved his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, nor sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The State, therefore, argues that defendant has no right to appeal to this Court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444. In addition or alternatively, the State submits that the record discloses no prejudicial error. Finally, the State urges the Court to deny defense counsel's request that this Court address an additional matter by writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A- 1444(e).
    As argued by the State in its motion to dismiss defendant's appeal, defendant does have a limited right of appeal to review certain sentencing issues under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444. However, we elect to conduct a limited review of the record in accordance with Anders as requested by defense counsel, instead of dismissing the appeal.
    Having reviewed the record proper under the limitations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444, we conclude that there is no error in defendant's sentences. Further, we discern no other issues of arguable merit on the record, and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Finally, in accordance with this Court's decision in State v. Dickson, 151 N.C. App. 136, 564 S.E.2d 640 (2002), we also conclude that this Court is without authority to issue a writ of certiorari to address the issue of whether defendant's sentence is supported by the evidence since defendant was sentenced within the presumptive range of sentences. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a1).
    In light of the foregoing, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.    Affirmed.
    Judges MARTIN and McCULLOUGH concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).    

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***