An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1119


Filed: 4 May 2004


         v.                         Guilford County
                                 Nos. 01 CRS 006996-98,
MILAN DION TANNER                     84863-70

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 10 April 2003 by Judge James M. Webb in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Gary A. Scarzafava, for the State.

    Kelly Scott Lee for defendant appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

    On 12 December 2001, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to seven counts of breaking or entering and seven counts of larceny after breaking or entering. The convictions were consolidated into two judgments. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 9 to 11 months in prison, and a concurrent term of 10 to 12 months in prison. The second term of imprisonment was suspended, and defendant was placed on supervised probation for 36 months. On 21 February 2003, a probation violation report was filed alleging that defendant was in arrears of the monetary conditions of his probation, had tested positive for marijuana and cocaine, had failed to complete any community service, had missed scheduled appointments with his probation officer, had broken curfew, and hadfailed to report for a substance abuse assessment. Defendant admitted violating his probation, and the trial court concluded that defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation as set forth in the violation report. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and activated his suspended prison sentence. 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, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (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 necessary documents.
    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. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    No error.
    Judges WYNN and HUNTER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***