An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1559


Filed: 20 July 2004


    v.                            Guilford County
                                No.    03 CRS 24218    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 2 July 2003 by Judge Henry E. Frye, Jr. in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 July 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General Iain M. Stauffer, for the State.

    Richard G. Roose for defendant-appellant.

    THORNBURG, Judge.

    Defendant was found guilty of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and was sentenced within the presumptive range to 8-10 months' imprisonment. The State adduced evidence that a 1999 Ford van, containing lighting fixtures, tools and a hand truck, was stolen from the parking lot of Lighting Creations, Inc. on the afternoon of 26 September 2002. Store employee Michael Oliver Pask discovered the theft and contacted police. Later that day, a former Lighting Creations employee, John Alexander Wooten, saw a Lighting Creations van heading eastward on Perimeter Point in Winston-Salem. Wooten pulled behind the van at a stoplight and flashed his lights because he thought the driver was either Mr.Pask or some other friend he might know from his time working at Lighting Creations. After pulling into a driveway, defendant got out of the van and spoke briefly with Wooten, claiming he was working as a temporary employee for Lighting Creations and was on his way to Greensboro. Suspicious of defendant's story, Wooten telephoned Lighting Creations and learned that the van had been stolen. Wooten apprised Pask of his encounter with defendant and Pask conveyed this information to police. Police ultimately located the van and returned it to Lighting Creations on 9 October 2003. While cleaning out the vehicle, Pask found a pawn shop receipt for tools and a hand truck bearing defendant's name.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Counsel asks that this Court conduct its own review of 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 (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 to do so. Defendant has filed no written arguments and a reasonable time for him to 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 and whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appealis frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial errors and have found none.
    Judges HUDSON and STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***