An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-10


Filed: 06 September 2005


         v.                        Lenoir County
                                No. 04 CRS 50260

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 25 May 2005 by Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Lenoir County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 April 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Brandon L. Truman, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Matthew D. Wunsche, for defendant-appellant.

    STEELMAN, Judge.

     Defendant Gamaliel D. Massenburg was found guilty of communicating threats in Lenoir County District Court on 19 February 2004. Defendant appealed to superior court for a trial de novo and a jury convicted defendant of communicating threats. The trial court sentenced defendant to 45 days in Lenoir County jail, suspended the sentence, and placed defendant on 18 months supervised probation. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel states that “[a]fter repeated and close examination of the record and review of the relevant law, counsel is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal” and asks this Court to review 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 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 must fully examine the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. In reaching this conclusion, we have conducted our own examination of the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none.
    We hold defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
    No error.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***