Opinion
No. 07-978.
Filed April 15, 2008.
Rockingham County Nos. 99CRS13151, 99CRS13154, 99CRS13156; 00CRS1093, 00CRS1096, 00CRS2690, 00CRS2692; 02CRS52655.
On writ of certiorari to review judgments dated 6 February 2004 by Judge Lindsay R. Davis in Superior Court, Rockingham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 March 2008.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Tenisha S. Jacobs, for the State. Christine B. Wunsche for Defendant-Appellant.
Gregory James Sharpe (Defendant) pleaded guilty on 14 June 2000 to several counts of breaking or entering a motor vehicle, breaking or entering, misdemeanor larceny, and larceny after breaking/entering. The trial court consolidated the convictions into seven consecutive judgments of six to eight months in prison. The trial court suspended the sentences and placed Defendant on supervised probation for sixty months. The trial court modified the conditions of probation on 8 March 2001, extending the period of probation by twenty-four months and requiring intensive probation for an additional six months. Defendant's probation was subsequently modified in February of 2003 to alter Defendant's monetary obligations and intensive probation requirements. Also in February of 2003, Defendant pleaded guilty to an unrelated offense of felony larceny. The trial court suspended Defendant's sentence of ten to twelve months in prison and placed Defendant on supervised probation for sixty months.
Defendant's probation officer filed probation violation reports on 9 December 2003 alleging that Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probationary judgment in each of Defendant's cases. After conducting a probation violation hearing in which Defendant, through counsel, admitted the allegations and the willfulness of the violations, the trial court found Defendant willfully violated his probation and activated his suspended sentences. The trial court entered written judgments and commitments upon revocation of probation dated 6 February 2004. This Court allowed Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgments on 12 July 2006.
Defendant's counsel states that after careful review of the record, she "is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal." She asks this Court to examine the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she 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 and have found none.
Defendant shows, however, that in the written judgment and commitment upon revocation of probation entered in file number 99 CRS 13156, the trial court failed to check the box on the judgment form indicating "[t]he sentence activated this date shall begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed in the case referenced below[.]" Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court to correct the clerical error in the written judgment and commitment in file number 99 CRS 13156. See State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 202, 535 S.E.2d 875, 878 (2000).
Affirmed; remanded for correction of clerical error in the written
judgment and commitment in file number 99 CRS 13156.
Judges STROUD and ARROWOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).