STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Craven County
No. 04 CRS 052442
BRENDA THOMAS,
Defendant.
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 in this matter and found no issues of arguable
merit.
Defendant Brenda Thomas was charged with providing drugs to an
inmate. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to the
charge in exchange for the State dismissing her habitual felon
status. The trial court determined Defendant had twenty-three
prior record level points and was a prior record level VI. The
trial court sentenced Defendant to sixteen to twenty months
imprisonment, which is within the presumptive range for a Class Hfelony at a prior record level VI. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's counsel states that he “is unable to identify an
issue with sufficient merit to support meaningful argument for
relief on appeal.” By letter dated 2 November 2005, Defendant's
counsel advised Defendant of her right to file written arguments
with this Court and provided her with the necessary documents to do
so. On 8 and 18 November 2005, Defendant filed written arguments
with this Court.
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. Pursuant to
Anders and Kinch, we must fully examine the record to determine
whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether
the appeal is wholly frivolous.
At the outset we note that because Defendant pled guilty and
was sentenced within the presumptive range, Defendant's appeal is
limited. Specifically, under section 15A-1444 of the North
Carolina General Statutes, a defendant who has pled guilty has a
right to appeal only the following issues: (1) whether the sentence
is supported by the evidence (if the minimum term of imprisonment
does not fall within the presumptive range); (2) whether the
sentence results from an incorrect finding of the defendant's prior
record level under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14 or the defendant's
prior conviction level under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.21; (3)
whether the sentence contains a type of sentence not authorized by
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17 or § 15A-1340.23 for the defendant'sclass of offense and prior record or conviction level; (4) whether
the sentence contains a term of imprisonment that is for a duration
not authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17 or N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 15A-1340.23 for the defendant's class of offense and prior record
or conviction level under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2)(3); (5)
whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to
suppress; or (6) whether the trial court improperly denied the
defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. State v. Jamerson,
161 N.C. App. 527, 528-29, 588 S.E.2d 545, 546-47 (2003). In
accordance with Anders, we have conducted our own examination of
the record for possible prejudicial error under section 15A-1444 of
the North Carolina General Statutes and have found none.
In her pro se arguments, Defendant brought forward two issues
on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in not sentencing her within
the mitigated range; and (2) ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. Defendant's pro se arguments do not fall within any of
the categories set out above and are therefore outside this Court's
limited review. Accordingly, we dismiss Defendant's pro se
arguments without prejudice to Defendant's right to seek post-trial
relief by filing a motion for appropriate relief with the trial
court. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1411 to 1422 (2005).
No error.
Judges MCGEE and HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***