Return to
Return to the Opinions Page
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-775


Filed: 6 March 2007


         v.                        Cumberland County
                                No. 02 CRS 67288

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 24 January 2006 by Judge E. Lynn Johnson in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 February 2007.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General Olga Vysotskaya, for the State.

    Paul T. Cleavenger for defendant-appellant.

    WYNN, Judge.

    This appeal arises from the trial court's order finding that Defendant Anthony Delano Jones willfully violated his probation, and activating his suspended sentence of ten to twelve months' imprisonment. However, on appeal, Defendant's counsel states that after careful review of the record, he was unable to identify “an error in law or procedure which could be argued in good faith under existing law.” He asks this Court to examine the record for possible prejudicial error.
    We hold that Defendant's counsel has shown to our satisfaction 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 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 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.
    In sum, we hold Defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
    No error.
    Judges ELMORE and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***