An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-126

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 06 September 2005

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Rutherford County
                                No. 03 CRS 54338
MICHELLE CECILA FRANKLIN
                                    
                                    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 15 July 2004 by Judge J. Gentry Caudill in Rutherford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 August 2005.
    
    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Gary R. Govert, for the State.

    J. Clark Fischer for defendant-appellant.

    STEELMAN, Judge.

    Defendant Michelle Cecila Franklin was charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon. A jury found defendant guilty as charged on 15 July 2004. The trial court sentenced defendant to 120 months to 153 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel states that he is “unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to justify a meaningful argument for appellate relief” 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 her right to file written arguments with this Court and providing her with documents necessary for her to do so. Defendant has not filed any 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 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 ***