An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-369


Filed: 3 October 2006


    v.                        Durham County
                            Nos. 03 CRS 054184
JERRY WAYNE COLCLOUGH                03 CRS 054186
                                03 CRS 054190
                                03 CRS 054193
                                03 CRS 054197
                                03 CRS 054199
                                03 CRS 054202
                                03 CRS 054204
                                03 CRS 054667

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 12 September 2005 by Judge Carl R. Fox in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 October 2006.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Graham, for the State.

    Michael J. Reece, for defendant-appellant.

    TYSON, Judge.

    Jerry Wayne Colclough (“defendant”) appeals judgments entered after pleading guilty. We affirm.

I. Background
     On 12 September 2005, defendant pled guilty to six counts of conspiracy to sell a Schedule II controlled substance, six counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, two counts of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine by possession, sale, and transportation, one count of trafficking in cocaine by possession, and possession ofcocaine with intent to sell or deliver.
    The trial court consolidated the offenses into three judgments and imposed three active terms of imprisonment for a minimum of thirty-five months and a maximum of forty-two months to run consecutively. Defendant appeals.
II. Anders v. California
    Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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). Counsel has stated that “after repeated and close examination of the Record, and after extensive review of the relevant law, [he] is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.” Counsel requests this Court to review the record for possible error he may have overlooked.
    Counsel has attached to the brief a letter he wrote to defendant in compliance with Anders and Kinch advising defendant of his inability to identify possible errors to assign on appeal and of defendant's right to file his own arguments directly with the Court. Defendant has not filed his own arguments and a reasonable time for him do so has passed.
III. Conclusion
    We have carefully reviewed the record and are unable to find any basis to support a meaningful argument of error on appeal. The judgments appealed from are affirmed.
    Judges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***