&nb sp; 
        
                                        

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Guilford County
                                Nos. 01 CRS 92083    
ARTHUR MAYO WOODBURY                    
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 July 2004 by Judge A. Moses Massey in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 August 2005.

    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.

    LEVINSON, Judge.

    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.
    Affirmed.
Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***