An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1331


Filed: 1 June 2004


    v.                            Iredell County
                                No. 98 CRS 018677
STANLEY JEROME LONG                        

    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 ***