Return to nccourts.org
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA07-82

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 3 July 2007

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Iredell County
                                Nos. 05CRS58700
JOSEPH JAMES HARGROVE                    05CRS10503-04
                                    05CRS14440    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 5 June 2006 by Judge Richard D. Boner in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 June 2007.

    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 agreement to 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 appeals.
     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.
    No error.
    Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***