An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-1258

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 21 March 2006

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Craven County
                                No. 04 CRS 052442
BRENDA THOMAS,
    Defendant.                            
                                    

    Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 25 January 2005 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford in Superior Court, Craven County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 March 2006.
    
    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rebecca E. Lem, for the State.

    M. Jason Williams, 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 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 ***