An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 6 December 2005
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Mecklenburg County
Nos. 03 CRS 15630
LARRY RAY HANNA 03 CRS 209648
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 July 2004 by
Judge Timothy S. Kincaid in Mecklenburg County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 December 2005.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Thomas J. Pitman, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate
Defender Matthew D. Wunsche, for defendant.
Larry Ray Hanna (defendant) appeals judgment sentencing him
to 116 to 149 months imprisonment for possession of marijuana and
having obtained habitual felon status. We find no error.
On 10 March 2003, defendant was charged with: (1) possession
with intent to sell or deliver marijuana; (2) maintaining a place
to keep controlled substances; (3) trafficking in cocaine; (4)
possession of drug paraphernalia; (5) secretly peeping into a room
occupied by a female person; and (6) being an habitual felon.
On 19 July 2004, the Mecklenburg County grand jury returned a
superceding indictment for the charge of possession with intent to
sell or deliver marijuana. On 26 July 2004, pursuant to a pleaarrangement, defendant pled guilty to felony possession of
marijuana and admitted his habitual felon status. The State
dismissed the remaining charges. Defendant stipulated to a prior
record level III for sentencing purposes and to the factual basis
for the plea as summarized by the State. The trial court sentenced
defendant to a presumptive term of 116 to 149 months imprisonment.
II. Anders Brief
Defense counsel brings forward one question on appeal but
presents no arguments in defendant's brief. Defense counsel
states, [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 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 6 June 2005, defense counsel informed
defendant that in his opinion there was no error in his trial and
that he could file his own arguments with this Court, if he so
desired. Copies of the transcript, record, and the brief filed by
counsel were sent 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 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665
(1985). Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must determine from afull examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is
Upon review of the entire record and of the assignment of
error noted in the record, we find the appeal to be wholly
Judges MCCULLOUGH and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***