An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

NO. COA05-160
                                          &nb sp; 
Filed: 16 August 2005


         v.                        Halifax County
                                No. 01 CRS 52748
TIAWAN I. HOCKADAY                     03 CRS 53210                

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 10 September 2004 by Judge Thomas D. Haigwood in Halifax County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 August 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Floyd M. Lewis, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kelly D. Miller, for defendant.
    LEVINSON, Judge.
     On 26 June 2003, Tiawan I. Hockaday (defendant) pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of uttering a forged instrument and was sentenced to a consolidated term of five to six months imprisonment (01 CRS 52748). The sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation for thirty-six months. On 21 January 2004, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to a term of six to eight months imprisonment (03 CRS 53210). The sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation for twenty-four months.
    On 25 February 2004, in 01 CRS 52748, a probation violationreport was filed alleging that defendant: (1) was in arrears on her monetary obligation, and (2) failed to report or show proof of her efforts at securing gainful employment. On 3 May 2004, in 03 CRS 53210, a second probation violation report was filed. In this report, it was alleged that defendant missed several appointments at the Day Reporting Center.
    The trial court held a hearing on 25 August 2004. Defendant admitted to violating the conditions of her probation and, through counsel, stated she was “not opposed” to revoking the suspended sentences. Indeed, as defense counsel acknowledged to the trial court, “part of the agreement [with the DA] . . . was that in serving her sentence that would be revoked, it would take care of the [assault inflicting serious injury] matter[] that she has in district court. That's per her agreement.” Defendant did not testify at the hearing. The trial court found that defendant willfully violated the conditions of her probation as alleged in the violation reports. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and activated her suspended sentences. Defendant's sentences were ordered to run consecutively. 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 she 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. 2d1377 (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 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 have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***