NO. COA03-1331
On writ of certiorari to review judgment dated 12 October 1999
by Judge Marvin K. Gray in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 12 May 2004.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Anne M. Middleton, for the State.
Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Stanley Jerome Long (defendant) seeks review of judgment dated
12 October 1999, entered consistent with his guilty plea to two
counts of statutory sexual offense, common law robbery, first
degree kidnapping, impersonating a law enforcement officer, and
indecent liberties.
The trial court consolidated the offenses and sentenced
defendant to 336 to 413 months imprisonment, which is within the
presumptive range of sentences authorized for a B1 felony and prior
record level IV. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with this Court on 7 June 2002 seeking a review of his judgment.
On 21 June 2002, this Court granted defendant's petition, for thelimited purpose of “reviewing petitioner's prior record level
calculation.”
_________________________
Defendant's counsel states that he is “unable to find a
colorable issue upon which to argue error given the express
limitation of review to 'petitioner's prior record level
calculation' in the Order granting defendant's Petition for Writ of
Certiorari,” and asks this Court to review the record for any
prejudicial error pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he
has complied with the requirements of
Anders, 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 his use. Defendant has not filed with
this Court any written arguments on his own behalf, and a
reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In
accordance with
Anders, we have conducted our own examination of
the record for possible prejudicial error regarding “petitioner's
prior record level calculation” and have found none.
Although defendant's counsel acknowledges the limited
appellate review, he nevertheless, points to “two colorable
arguments for reversible error.” We dismiss these additional
arguments without prejudice to defendant's right to seek post-trial
relief by filing a motion for appropriate relief with the trial
court.
See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1411 - 1422 (2003). No error.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McGEE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***