An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA02-1501

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 May 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        v.                    Rockingham County
                            Nos. 01CRS51537-38,
STEVEN O'NEAL SCALES                02CRS759, 02CRS1648,
                                02CRS2157-58, 02CRS50148-                                 49, 02CRS50193,
                                02CRS50197
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 May 2002 by Judge Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., in Rockingham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 April 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.

    Michael J. Reece for defendant appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

    Defendant Steven O'Neal Scales pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of second-degree kidnapping, felony possession of cocaine, misdemeanor possession of marijuana (up to 1/2 oz.), felony breaking and/or entering, possession with intent to sell/deliver cocaine, and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant also admitted to having attained the status of habitual felon. In accordance with his plea agreement, the trial court consolidated the offenses for judgment. After making one finding in aggravation and one finding in mitigation, the trial court found that the aggravating factor outweighed the mitigatingfactor, and sentenced defendant to an aggravated term of 145-183 months' imprisonment. The trial court also revoked defendant's probation as to other unrelated cases. Defendant appeals.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal, and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he 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.
    Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. After a thorough examination of the record in accordance with Anders, we conclude that defendant had a trial free from error.
    While this is so, we note that it has been brought to our attention that the judgment in this case incorrectly shows that the trial court found as a mitigating factor that defendant had completed a drug treatment program, denoted as mitigating factor #16. Review of the transcript reveals that the trial court actually found as a mitigating factor that defendant had accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct, which is denoted asmitigating factor #15. As this appears to be a clerical mistake, we would remand this matter for entry of a corrected judgment. See State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 80, 568 S.E.2d 867, 874, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002); State v. Lawing, 12 N.C. App. 21, 182 S.E.2d 10 (1971).
    Remanded for entry of a correction of clerical error; in all other respects, no error.
    Judges MARTIN and CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***