An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-1042


Filed: 19 April 2005


         v.                        Rowan County
                                Nos.    02 CRS 8888, 53424,
JASON BRIAN SIMMONS                        02 CRS 55616, 55729,
                                    03 CRS 8069, 54928,
                                    03 CRS 59686, 59857,
                                    03 CRS 59860, 04CRS6

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 March 2004 by Judge Christopher M. Collier in Rowan County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 April 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.

    K.E. Krispen Culbertson for defendant appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

    Petitioner entered pleas of guilty to first-degree burglary, possession of marijuana, felonious breaking and entering, possession of stolen goods, possession of a stolen firearm, two counts of felonious larceny and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, and habitual felon status. As provided in his plea agreement, the trial court consolidated defendant's offenses for judgment and sentenced him to a single presumptive term of 133 to 169 months' imprisonment.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support ameaningful argument for relief. He asks this Court to 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, 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 necessary documents. Defendant has filed no pro se arguments, and a reasonable time for him to have done so has passed.
    As mandated by 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 appeal is frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial errors and have found none.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***