An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-1319


Filed: 5 July 2005


         v.                        Wilson County
                                No. 01CRS6108

    On writ of certiorari to review the judgment entered 12 February 2002 by Judge Cy A. Grant, Sr. in Wilson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Myra L. Griffin, for the State.

    Lemuel W. Hinton for defendant-appellant.

    BRYANT, Judge.

    Christopher Antonio Joyner (defendant) was convicted by jury verdict of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and the trial court sentenced him to a presumptive term of 103-133 months imprisonment. By order entered 31 January 2003, this Court allowed defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to review his conviction and sentence in this matter.
    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 he has compliedwith 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 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.
    No error.
    Judges ELMORE and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***