An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-798

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 1 March 2005

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                    Mecklenburg County
                            Nos. 03 CRS 232332-34
STEVE MORRISON                        03 CRS 232336-40
                                03 CRS 232342
                                03 CRS 58114

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 12 February 2004 by Judge Forrest D. Bridges in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 January 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Gaines M. Weaver, for the State.


    Paul F. Herzog for defendant-appellant.

    ELMORE, Judge.

    Defendant Steve Morrison was charged with three counts of trafficking in drugs, two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, two counts of sale of a controlled substance, and attaining the status of habitual felon. A jury found defendant guilty as charged. At sentencing, the trial court arrested judgment in the two delivery convictions and one trafficking conviction, and consolidated the remaining convictions into three judgments. The trial court sentenced defendant as a class C felon to three consecutive sentences of 100 to 129 months, 90 to 117months and 90 to 117 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel states that “[a]fter repeated and close examination of the record and review of relevant law, counsel is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal” and asks this Court to review 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, 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 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 must fully examine the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none.
    We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
    No error.
    Judges HUNTER and STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***