An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1230


Filed: 18 May 2004


         v.                        Robeson County
                                Nos. 99 CRS 199,
JOHN CINTRON                            00 CRS 53238, 54130,
                                    01 CRS 52680

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 5 May 2003 by Judge Robert F. Floyd, Jr. in Robeson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 May 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John W. Congleton, for the State.

    Brian Michael Aus for defendant-appellant.

    MARTIN, Chief Judge.

    On 26 July 2001, defendant was convicted of two counts of possession of stolen goods, and one count each of breaking or entering, conspiracy to commit breaking or entering, larceny after breaking or entering, and felonious larceny. The convictions were consolidated into four judgments. Defendant was sentenced to one term of eight to ten months imprisonment, and to three consecutive terms of ten to twelve months imprisonment. The sentences were suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation.
    On 31 March 2003, probation violation reports were filed alleging that defendant had violated curfew, failed to make payments toward his monetary obligation, and absconded. Defendantadmitted violating his probation, and the trial court found 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 sentences. From the judgments entered, 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 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. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    No error.
    Judges McGEE and BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***