An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-1386

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 June 2006

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
                                    Randolph County
    v.                                Nos. 02CRS 50278
                                        03CRS 10
LEE EDWARD NETTLES

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 June 2005 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr., in Randolph County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2006.

    Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Angel E. Gray, for the State.

    J. Clark Fischer for defendant-appellant.

    
    HUNTER, Judge.

    On 29 October 2003, defendant was convicted of possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine. Defendant admitted his status as an habitual felon and was sentenced as a Class C, Level III felon to a term of 93 to 121 months imprisonment. On appeal in State v. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. 100, 108, 612 S.E.2d 172, 177, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 640, 617 S.E.2d 286 (2005), this Court held that there was insufficient evidence of defendant's intent to sell or deliver cocaine. Thus, the Court ordered that defendant's conviction be reversed for possession with intent to sell or distribute cocaine and the matter remanded for resentencing on the lesser included felony offense of possession of cocaine. Id. at 108, 612 S.E.2d at 177. Defendant'sconviction as an habitual felon was affirmed. Id. at 109, 612 S.E.2d at 178. On remand, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with this Court's instructions. Defendant was resentenced as a Class C, Level III to a term of 93 to 121 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also 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 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 have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
    No error.
    Judges WYNN and McGEE concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***