An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1638

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 October 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Pender County
                                No. 03 CRS 51882
DURLAND PARRISH
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 12 September 2003 by Judge Ernest B. Fullwood in Pender County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 August 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Q. Shante' Martin, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples Hughes for defendant-appellant.

    TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.

    Defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to first- degree sex offense with a child. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a presumptive term of 192-240 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 its own 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 his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the 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 have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear 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 have found none.
    No error.
    Judges CALABRIA and LEVINSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***