An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA02-1453


Filed: 20 May 2003


        v.                    Surry County
                            Nos. 01 CRS 52925, 53066;
SHARAY LAMEL FOWLER                 02 CRS 3401-4


    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 6 August 2002 by Judge A. Moses Massey in Surry County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 May 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Mary S. Mercer, for the State.

    Stowers & James, P.A., by Paul M. James, III, for defendant- appellant.

    CALABRIA, Judge.

Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, two counts of armed robbery and four counts of first degree kidnapping. Defendant pled guilty to all charges pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court consolidated the charges and sentenced defendant in the presumptive range as a level II offender to a class D sentence of a minimum of 69 months to a maximum of 92 months, followed by a consecutive sentence of aminimum of 90 months to a maximum of 117 months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction.
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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). Counsel has informed the Court in his brief of his having advised defendant in accordance with these decisions. He has also included an assignment of possible error, of which the defendant has been notified, along with his opinion that an appeal is frivolous and without merit. Defendant has not filed his own written arguments.
    Having fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Judges MARTIN and McCULLOUGH concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).    

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***