An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-281

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 September 2006

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
                                Cumberland County
         v.                        No. 01 CRS 56962
                                
DEMETRIS RASHON PETERSON                         
                                    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 November 2005 by Judge W. Allen Cobb, Jr. in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 August 2006.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Gaines M. Weaver, for the State.

    Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for defendant-appellant.

    CALABRIA, Judge.
    
    Demetris Rashon Peterson (“defendant”) appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a plea agreement whereby defendant pled guilty to breaking or entering, larceny, possession of stolen goods, conspiracy, and possession of weapons of mass destruction. We find no error.
     On 1 April 2002, defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant agreed to plead guilty to charges of breaking or entering, larceny, possession of stolen goods and conspiracy to commit a felony. Further, upon defendant's completion of certain conditions, the charge of possession of weapons of mass destruction would be dismissed. Judgment was continued in order to permit defendant to provide substantial assistance to law enforcement regarding several investigations . Subsequently, however, the 1 April 2002 plea agreement failed.
    On 6 February 2003, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a new plea agreement to breaking or entering, larceny, possession of stolen goods, conspiracy and possession of weapons of mass destruction. The trial court consolidated the charges for judgment and sentenced defendant to a minimum of nineteen months to a maximum of twenty-three months imprisonment in the North Carolina Department of Correction. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed defendant on supervised probation for thirty-six months. The conditions of probation included, inter alia, not using or possessing any illegal drugs or controlled substances and supplying a urine or blood specimen for analysis for the presence of prohibited substances.
    On 11 August 2004, Kathy C. Blackmon (“Blackmon”), defendants' probation officer, filed a probation violation report alleging defendant: (1) tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on 13 March 2004; (2) failed to complete 50 hours of community service; (3) failed to consistently report to his probation officer on a weekly basis; (4) violated court ordered curfews on numerous occasions; (5) failed to maintain several monetary obligations with the Clerk of Cumberland County Superior Court; (6) failed to obtain suitable employment; and (7) failed to comply with and thus was terminated from TASC.     The trial court held a probation violation hearing on 14 November 2005. Defendant denied violating the conditions of his probation. Blackmon testified regarding defendant's multiple violations of his probation. Defendant did not testify. The trial court determined defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced defendant to a minimum of seventeen months to a maximum of twenty-one months imprisonment in the North Carolina Department of Correction. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant's counsel failed to identify any meritorious issue on appeal and asks this Court to 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, 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 the documents necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record and have not found any possible prejudicial error.
    Affirmed.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***