An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-509


Filed: 18 May 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                Buncombe County                
                                Nos. 01 CRS 61632, 01 CRS

                                64034-36, 01 CRS 64038, 02 CRS 1028-29, 02 CRS    
            v.                    1031, 02 CRS 55823, 02
                                CRS 57265-66, 02 CRS       & nbsp;

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 13 November 2002 by Judge Ronald K. Payne in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 May 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.

    Kelly Scott Lee, for defendant-appellant.

    CALABRIA, Judge.

    Gregory Shadee Slayton (“defendant”) pled guilty to the following felony charges: assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, two counts of possession with intent to manufacture, sell and deliver cocaine, and assault with a deadly weapon. At the same time, defendant also pled guilty to various drug-related and traffic-related misdemeanor offenses. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenceddefendant to an active term of 96-125 months in the North Carolina Department of Correction for an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury conviction. The court consolidated the assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill charge with the remaining charges, suspended defendant's sentence, and placed defendant on supervised probation for 36 months to be served at the end of the active term referenced above. 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 (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. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found none.    No error.
    Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and ELMORE concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***