An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-296

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 7 October 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Forsyth County
                                Nos. 02 CRS 10439
SARAH RENEE JOHNSON,                    02 CRS 52947
        Defendant.

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 November 2002 by Judge L. Todd Burke in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 August 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Jane L. Oliver, for the State.

    John T. Hall, for defendant-appellant.

    GEER, Judge.

    Defendant included three assignments of error in the record on appeal, but in defendant's brief on appeal, defendant's counsel states that he has "examined the face of the Record proper and is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal." Under 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), he asks this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error. We find no error.
    A jury found defendant guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, of the sale or delivery of cocaine, and of conspiracy to deliver cocaine. Defendant subsequently admitted herstatus as an habitual felon. The trial court sentenced defendant to 93 to 121 months imprisonment.
    Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch by advising defendant of her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with documents necessary for her to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on her own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which she could have done so has passed.
    In accordance with Anders, we must fully examine the record to determine whether it presents any issues of arguable merit or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none.
    We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

    No error.
    Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***