An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-632


Filed: 3 May 2005


         v.                        Alamance County
                                No. 03 CRS 56314

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 February 2004 by Judge J. B. Allen, Jr. in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 February 2005.

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

    Jarvis John Edgerton, IV for defendant-appellant.

    GEER, Judge.

     Defendant Tony Nelson Slade pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to selling cocaine, possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, and to having attained the status of a habitual felon. Defendant preserved his right to appeal the issue whether a prior offense of possession of cocaine could be used as a predicate offense in the habitual felon indictment. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 80 to 105 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has reported to the Court that he has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal in light of our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Jones, 358 N.C.473, 598 S.E.2d 125 (2004). He asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985) . Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and Kinch by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and by providing him with the documents necessary 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. We have not, however, identified any possible prejudicial error.

    No error.
    Judges WYNN and TYSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***