State v Routh, (05-381) 01/17/2006

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 6 January 2005 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr., in Randolph County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 January 2006.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.

Bryan Emery Gates, Jr. for defendant-appellant.

HUNTER, Judge.

    Jason Andrew Routh (“defendant”) appeals from judgments of the trial court revoking his probation and activating his suspended sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
    On 6 May 2004, defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, simple assault, and misdemeanor larceny. He entered an Alford plea to additional charges of common law robbery, felonious breaking and entering, felonious larceny, possession of a stolen firearm, and two counts of larceny of a dog. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970). The trial courtconsolidated defendant's offenses into three judgments, sentenced him to consecutive suspended prison terms totaling sixty-six to ninety-eight months, and placed him on supervised probation for forty-eight months. Violation reports filed 22 November 2004 alleged that defendant tested positive for marijuana use, failed to perform community service, missed scheduled appointments with the probation officer, failed to satisfy the monetary conditions of probation, violated his curfew, failed to attend GED classes, quit his employment without notifying his probation officer, and failed to obtain substance abuse treatment through the TASC program. After a hearing held 6 January 2005, the trial court found defendant in willful violation of the conditions of probation and activated his suspended sentences. Defendant gave timely notice of appeal.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. He asks that this Court conduct its own review of 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 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments, and a reasonable time for him to 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 conclude the appeal is frivolous. Finding no possible prejudicial error, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
    Affirmed.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***