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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA07-376


Filed: 4 September 2007


         v.                    Cabarrus County
                            Nos. 06 CRS 53321;
                                06 CRS 15208

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 January 2007 by Judge Christopher M. Collier in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 August 2007.

    Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Associate Attorney General Catherine F. Jordan, attorney for the State.

    Peter Wood, attorney for defendant-appellant.

    JACKSON, Judge.

    On 29 January 2007, Jesse Mae Jones James (“defendant”) pled guilty to felonious possession of a stolen vehicle and to being an habitual felon. Defendant was sentenced to 101 to 131 months imprisonment. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.
    Defense counsel represents that he has been unable to identify any issues that, in his opinion, have sufficient merit to support an argument and, consequently, submits defendant's brief pursuant to 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 letter dated 23 April 2007, defense counsel informed defendant that he was unable to find error in defendant's trial and that defendant could file her own arguments with this Court, if she so desired. Copies of the transcript, record, and brief filed by counsel were sent to defendant. Accordingly, we hold that defendant's counsel has complied with the holdings in Anders and Kinch. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 498; Kinch, 314 N.C. at 102, 331 S.E.2d at 666.67.
    Defendant has filed no written arguments in this Court, and a reasonable time for her to have done so has passed.
    In accordance with Anders, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found no issues of arguable merit.     No error.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e)

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***