An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-1488


Filed: 5 July 2005


         v.                        Moore County
                                Nos. 03 CRS 55149,
REGINALD O. HORTON                        04 CRS 05090    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment signed 27 July 2004 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey in Moore County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 2005.

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

    William B. Gibson for defendant-appellant.

    BRYANT, Judge.

    Reginald O. Horton (defendant) appeals his judgment signed 27 July 2004, entered consistent with a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement to forgery and admission of his status as an habitual felon.
    Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant waived the waiting period prescribed in N.C.G.S. § 14-7.3, the State agreed to dismiss a charge of financial identity fraud, and defendant was sentenced from the mitigated range of punishment to a term of sixty to eighty-one months imprisonment. On 30 July 2004, defendant filed written notice of appeal.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable toidentify 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 (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. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    No error.
    Judges ELMORE and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***