Opinion
No. COA09-1055
Filed 18 May 2010 This case not for publication
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 1 April 2009 by Judge John O. Craig, III, in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 2010.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lotta A. Crabtree, for the State.
Daniel J. Clifton for defendant appellant.
Guilford County No. 08 CRS 98346.
On 17 November 2008, defendant pled guilty to larceny of a motor vehicle and to possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The trial court consolidated the two convictions into one judgment, sentenced defendant to a suspended term of 8 to 10 months' imprisonment, and placed defendant on 36 months' supervised probation. As a special condition of probation, the trial court ordered defendant to serve two months in the custody of the Guilford County Sheriff. However, defendant was also given credit for 94 days spent in pretrial confinement, which was applied to the imprisonment required as a special condition of probation. On 8 December 2008, defendant's probation officer filed a probation violation report, alleging that defendant had violated three conditions of his probation. On 1 April 2009, the trial court conducted a probation revocation hearing. Defendant admitted the violations, and the trial court revoked defendant's probation and activated his suspended sentence. The trial court also gave defendant credit for over six months spent in pretrial confinement prior to the probation revocation hearing. From the judgment entered, defendant appeals.
Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also 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 (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 have fully examined 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. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found none.
No error.
Judges McGEE and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).