An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

NO. COA04-1693


Filed: 6 September 2005


         v.                        Gaston County
                                Nos. 00 CRS 66238
CHERYL A. HARGETT,                        00 CRS 66242

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 July 2004 by Judge Timothy L. Patti in the Superior Court in Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 August 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.

    Haakon Thorsen, for defendant-appellant.

    HUDSON, Judge.

    In Gaston County Superior Court on 26 February 2002, defendant Cheryl A. Hargett pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon on a government official and fleeing to elude arrest. The trial judge sentenced defendant to 19-23 months imprisonment, which he suspended, and placed defendant on supervised probation for 36 months.
    On or about 21 May 2004, defendant's probation officer filed a report, alleging that defendant had violated certain terms and conditions of her probation. This matter was subsequently heard by Judge Timothy Patti during the 6 July 2004 criminal session of the Superior Court in Gaston County. At the outset of the hearing,defendant, through counsel, waived the formal reading of the violation report and admitted the violation. After hearing further from defendant's probation officer, the trial court found and concluded that defendant had willfully and without lawful excuse violated the terms and conditions of her probation, as alleged in the violation report. The trial court, therefore, revoked defendant's probation and activated her suspended sentence. 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 her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with the documents necessary for her to do so.
    Defendant has filed no written arguments on her own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in which she 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 and found none. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Judges MCGEE and LEVINSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***