An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-835


Filed: 1 June 2004


         v.                        Scotland County
                                Nos. 99 CRS 7935-37


    On Writ of Certiorari from judgment entered 15 October 1999 by Judge Robert F. Floyd in Scotland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 May 2004.
    Defendant Charles Patrick O'Neal, Jr. pled guilty to first degree rape, first degree burglary and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court consolidated the offenses and sentenced defendant to 230 to 285 months imprisonment, which is within the presumptive range of sentences authorized for a B1 felony and prior record level II. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A- 1340.14 and 15A-1340.17. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court on 8 August 2002 seeking a review of his judgment. On 21 August 2002, this Court granted defendant's petition, limiting appellate review “to those issues upon which defendant had a right to direct appeal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A- 1444(a2)(2001).”

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Harriet F. Worley, for the State.

    Duncan B. McCormick for defendant-appellant.

    ELMORE, Judge.

    Defendant's counsel states that he is “unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support an argument for relief on appeal[,]” and asks this Court to review the record for any prejudicial error.
    Counsel has 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 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 must fully examine the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom 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 TIMMONS-GOODSON and CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***