An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-1092


Filed: 1 March 2005


         v.                             Cumberland County
                                     No. 01CRS53303

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 11 March 2004 by Judge Jack A. Thompson in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 February 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert T. Hargett, for the State.

    Everett & Hite, L.L.P., by Stephen D. Kiess, for defendant appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

    Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree burglary, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant also admitted to having attained the status of habitual felon. On a previous appeal, this Court determined that defendant had been improperly sentenced as a prior record Level III offender, and remanded this matter to the trial court for resentencing. On resentencing, the trial court corrected the error as mandated by this Court, and sentenced defendant as an habitual felon having a prior record Level II to three consecutive sentences and one concurrent sentence of 100-129months' imprisonment. Again, 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 necessary documents 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 found none. We, therefore, affirm the judgments of the trial court.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***