An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-256
                                          &nb sp;                 

                                          &nb sp; 
Filed: 6 January 2004


         v.                        Halifax County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 7186
MELVIN EUGENE ROBINSON                    01 CRS 2607

    On writ of certiorari to review judgments entered 8 November 2001 by Judge Dwight L. Cranford in Halifax County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 December 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Gerald K. Robbins, for the State.

    Brian Michael Aus for defendant-appellant.

    LEVINSON, Judge.

    Defendant Melvin Eugene Robinson was charged with felonious breaking or entering and felonious larceny in 01 CRS 2607 and felonious breaking or entering in 00 CRS 7186. Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State, wherein he agreed to plead no contest to all of the charges set forth in the indictments and receive three Class H active sentences that would run consecutively to each other. Those sentences would run concurrently with sentences entered in case numbers 01 CRS 50612-3. The State agreed to dismiss six other offenses.
    On or about 8 November 2001, defendant tendered his plea to the trial court. After accepting the plea, the trial court, inaccordance with the plea agreement, entered judgments sentencing defendant to three consecutive terms of 12-15 months imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentences in case number 01 CRS 50612. Petitioner petitioned for and was granted a belated appeal for limited review of his convictions in 01 CRS 2607 and 00 CRS 7186, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(a2).
    By his sole assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prior record level V offender. This argument is based on the fact that the prior level record worksheet prepared by the prosecutor denominates defendant's prior convictions using “CR” instead of “CRS,” i.e., indicating convictions in the district, instead of the superior court. Defendant concedes, however, that the Clerk of Court's records properly reflect the true nature of the convictions. He further admits that other than this “clerical error” in the worksheet, “defendant was correctly sentenced as a Level V offender.” Nonetheless, defendant still requests that this matter be remanded for correction of the error.
    Every clerical error does not require remand for correction. See State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 201, 535 S.E.2d 875, 878-79 (2000) (providing examples of instances in which our courts have held clerical errors to be harmless). In this case, the error occurs on a handwritten worksheet (and not the judgments), which is utilized in calculating defendant's prior record points. Moreover, we find it significant that the Clerk of Court's records correctly delineate the convictions as being felonies and of superior courtorigin (“CRS”). Finally, we fail to discern how the subject error could prejudice defendant, who concedes that he was otherwise sentenced properly in each of the judgments as a prior record level V offender.
    Accordingly, we deny defendant's request to remand this matter for correction of the subject clerical error.
    Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***