STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Iredell County
JOSEPH JAMES HARGROVE 05CRS10503-04
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Robert K. Smith, for the State.
Duncan B. McCormick for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Defendant Joseph James Hargrove pled guilty pursuant to a plea
felony fleeing to elude arrest, driving while license
revoked, reckless driving and attaining habitual felon status.
According to the terms of the plea agreement, the State agreed to
dismiss other charges of driving while impaired, speeding, failure
to stop at a red light and misdemeanor hit and run. Defendant,
through counsel, stipulated that he had ten prior record level
points and was a prior record level IV for sentencing purposes.
The trial court consolidated the offenses for judgment and
sentenced defendant to 110 months to 141 months imprisonment, which
is within the presumptive range for a Class C felon at a priorrecord level IV.
Defendant's counsel states that after reviewing the record on appeal he is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on direct appeal and asks this Court to review the record for possible prejudicial error. We note that because defendant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced within the presumptive range for a Class C felon at a prior record level of IV, defendant's appeal of right is limited under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e). See State v. Hamby, 129 N.C. App. 366, 369, 499 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1998).
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 under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e) and have found none.
In addition to seeking review pursuant to Anders, defensecounsel asserts that the trial court violated N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1022(a)(6) by informing defendant he could receive consecutive sentences and by calculating the maximum possible sentence using the aggravated range for a Class C felony at a prior record level IV. We note, however, that [t]he submission . . . of isolated 'Anders issues' for the appellate court to research is not a viable course of action when perfecting a criminal appeal. State v. Barton, 335 N.C. 696, 712, 441 S.E.2d 295, 304 (1994). If counsel believes that an issue of arguable merit appears in the record, he should not file an Anders brief. See id. at 711, 441 S.E.2d at 303 (quoting State v. Wynne, 329 N.C. 507, 522, 406 S.E.2d 812, 820 (1991)). We further note, as counsel acknowledges, that this issue is outside the scope of defendant's limited appeal under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e). Accordingly, we do not address this issue.
Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***