An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1343

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 1 June 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Guilford County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 107538
TEACO EDWARD MALONE                        01 CRS 24102
                                    01 CRS 77877
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 12 March 2003 by Judge William Z. Wood, Jr., in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 May 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.

    Michael Driver for defendant-appellant.

    McGEE, Judge.

    Defendant pled guilty on 23 April 2001 to two counts of possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana and one count of possession of cocaine. The trial court entered judgments suspending defendant's sentences of minimum terms of eight months and maximum terms of ten months imprisonment for each count, and placed defendant on supervised probation. Defendant's probation officer filed probation violation reports in 2002 alleging that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probationary judgments. Defendant admitted at the probation violation hearing, through his counsel, that the violations "were willful and without lawful excuse[.]" Defense counsel subsequently urged the trialcourt to allow defendant to remain on probation or, in the alternative, not to activate all of defendant's sentences. The trial court found defendant willfully violated his probation and activated his suspended sentences. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel stated that after careful review of the record, he was "unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal." He asks this Court to examine the record for possible 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 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.
    No error.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***