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