STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
Nos. 01 CRS 92083
ARTHUR MAYO WOODBURY
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General William P. Hart and Assistant Attorney General Dahr
Joseph Tanoury, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Anne M. Gomez, for defendant.
On 1 October 2001, the Guilford County grand jury indicted
defendant on charges of possession with intent to sell and deliver
cocaine, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, and trafficking
in cocaine by possession. Following a hearing on 14 July 2004, the
trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence. After
reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his
suppression motion, defendant pled guilty pursuant to North
Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970). The
trial court consolidated the three charges for judgment and
sentenced defendant to a term of 35 to 42 months imprisonment. From the trial court's judgment, defendant appeals.
Defendant's counsel brings forward nine questions on appeal but presents no arguments in defendant's brief. She states that [a]fter repeated and close examination of the record and review of relevant law, counsel is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal[,] and she asks this Court to conduct a full examination of the record on appeal for possible error to determine whether any justiciable issue has been overlooked by counsel.
By letter dated 11 February 2004, defendant's counsel informed defendant that in her opinion there was no error in his trial and that he could file his own arguments in this Court if he so desired. Defendant's counsel sent copies of the transcript, record and the brief which she filed to defendant. Defendant has filed no arguments in this Court.
We hold that defendant's counsel has substantially complied with the holdings in 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). Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Upon review of the entire record and of the assignments of error noted in the record, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous.
Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***