An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-842


Filed: 21 March 2006


         v.                        Stokes County
                                Nos. 04 CRS 3231
KEVIN TYRONE FLIPPEN                    04 CRS 3357
                                    04 CRS 3363

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 3 November 2004 by Judge Judson D. DeRamus in Stokes County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 2006.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kelly D. Miller, for defendant-appellant.

    BRYANT, Judge.

    On 3 November 2004, Kevin Tyrone Flippen (defendant) pled guilty to secret assault, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and having attained the status of a habitual felon in Stokes County Superior Court pursuant to a plea arrangement with the State. On the same date, Judge Judson D. DeRamus sentenced defendant to two consecutive prison terms of 93 to 121 months. From the judgments entered, defendant appeals.
    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.” As such, defense counsel asks this Court to fully review the record for possible prejudicial error.    Defense counsel has 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. 2d 1377 (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 for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in which he 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.
    No error.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER concur.
     Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***