An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-3

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 06 July 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Wake County
                                Nos. 02 CRS 790-791,
CHARLES PATRICK WELDON                    02 CRS 69525    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 December 2002 by Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 June 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel P. O'Brien, for the State.

    Michael J. Reece for defendant-appellant.

    
    STEELMAN, Judge.

    Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, felony possession of cocaine, and was found to be an habitual felon. The possession with intent to sell or deliver charge and the possession charge were consolidated for purposes of judgment. Defendant was sentenced to 100 to 129 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 hascomplied 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 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. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    NO ERROR.
    Judges HUDSON and THORNBURG concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***