An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-1246

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 21 March 2006

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Buncombe County
                                No. 03 CRS 60414
ABRAHAM ADAMS,
    Defendant.
    

    Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 2 March 2005 by Judge James U. Downs in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 March 2006.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Yvonne B. Ricci, for the State.

    Douglas L. Hall, for defendant-appellant.

    WYNN, Judge.

    Under 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), we thoroughly examined the record on appeal and found no issues of arguable merit.
     Defendant Abraham Adams appeals from judgment entered consistent with a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving while license revoked. The trial court sentenced Defendant to ninety days in the custody of the Buncombe County Sheriff .
     Defendant's counsel states that after examination of the record and review of the law, he is unable to identify issues “of sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief onappeal” 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, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, and Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665, by advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with 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.
    Affirmed.
    Judges MCGEE and HUNTER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***