STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Pender County
No. 05 CRS 4711
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.
James M. Bell for defendant-appellant.
On 26 May 2005, defendant pled guilty to felony possession of
cocaine in New Hanover County District Court. The trial court
entered judgment suspending defendant's sentence of a minimum term
of eight months and maximum term of ten months imprisonment and
placed defendant on supervised probation for thirty-six months.
Defendant's supervision was transferred to Pender County. In
October and November of 2005, defendant's probation officer filed
probation violation reports alleging that defendant had violated
his probation by: (1) testing positive for both cocaine and
marijuana; (2) failing to notify his probation officer that he
moved from his residence; (3) being in arrears on his supervisionand court fees; and (4) failing to report to TASC or CDTEG since
admission date[.] After defendant executed a written waiver of
counsel form, defendant appeared pro se at the probation violation
hearing and admitted to testing positive for cocaine and marijuana
and being behind in his monetary payments.
On 7 November 2005 the
trial court found defendant willfully violated his probation and
activated his suspended sentence. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's counsel states that after careful review of the record, he was unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. He asks this Court to examine the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has 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, 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 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. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore,affirmed.
Judges McCULLOUGH and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***