An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-353

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 18 November 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    v.                            Davidson County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 55096-98
ELMER LEE JOHNSON

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 March 2002 by Judge Kimberly S. Taylor in Davidson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.

    Robert W. Ewing for defendant-appellant.

    EAGLES, Chief Judge.

    Defendant pled no contest on 19 March 2002 to charges of first degree sex offense, first degree rape of a child, and taking indecent liberties with a child. According to the terms of the plea agreement, the parties agreed that the charges would be consolidated into one Class B1 felony and that defendant would received a minimum presumptive sentence of 192 months to 240 months. The court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to a minimum term of 192 months and a maximum term of 240 months.
    Defendant appeals from the judgment, contending his plea is invalid because it was not intelligently and understandingly made. He argues that the court failed to make an affirmativedetermination that his plea was intelligently and understandingly made. He further claims the court failed, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1022, to determine whether defendant understood the nature of the charges and to inform the defendant that his plea will result in the waiver of his right to confront the witnesses against him.
    When a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a crime, he limits appellate review as a matter of right to certain narrow issues related to sentencing, to review of the denial of a motion to suppress, or to review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea. State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 73, 568 S.E.2d 867, 870, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002). Otherwise, review may be obtained only by a petition for a writ of certiorari. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(e) (2001). Since defendant does not challenge the sentence, the denial of a motion to suppress, or the denial of a motion to withdraw the plea, he does not have an appeal of right. His notice of appeal is a nullity and the appeal must be dismissed. State v. Waters, 122 N.C. App. 504, 505, 470 S.E.2d 545, 546 (1996).
    Acknowledging he may not have a right of appeal, defendant has requested the Court treat the record and his brief as a petition for a writ of certiorari. After reviewing the record and brief, we decline, in our discretion, to issue the writ.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Judges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***