An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1541


Filed: 06 July 2004


         v.                        Gaston County
                                Nos. 02 CRS 5336
SHARON DENISE LOGAN,                    02 CRS 5933

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 13 March 2003 by Judge Julius A. Rousseau, Jr. in Caldwell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 June 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General Stormie D. Forte, for the State.

    Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant.

    STEELMAN, Judge.

    Defendant, Sharon Denise Logan, was charged with common law robbery and having attained the status of habitual felon. Initially defendant pled not guilty to the charges and proceeded to trial before a duly empaneled jury. However, defendant changed her plea to guilty after the State's presentation of evidence. The trial court thereafter entered judgment on defendant's guilty plea, sentencing her to a term of 150-189 months imprisonment. 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 itsown 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 her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with the documents necessary for her to do so.
    Defendant has not filed any written arguments on her own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in which she could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appears therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found none.
    Judges HUDSON and THORNBURG concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***