Opinion
No. COA15-974
05-17-2016
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID DEWAYNE SCHNEBELEN
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General Zachary Padget, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendant-appellant. David Dewayne Schnebelen, pro se.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. Burke County, No. 14 CRS 50888 Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 March 2015 by Judge Carla Archie in Burke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 May 2016. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General Zachary Padget, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for defendant-appellant. David Dewayne Schnebelen, pro se. McCULLOUGH, Judge.
On 5 May 2014, defendant David Dewayne Schnebelen was indicted for one count of the manufacture of methamphetamine, and two counts of possession of an immediate precursor chemical. On 17 July 2014, defendant filed a motion to suppress, which was later amended and supplemented in March 2015. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant then pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to the offenses charged in the indictment. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court consolidated the convictions for judgment and sentenced defendant to a term of 110 to 144 months of imprisonment. 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 she 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 filed written arguments on his own behalf in which he argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. "[I]n order to properly appeal the denial of a motion to suppress after a guilty plea, a defendant must take two steps: (1) he must, prior to finalization of the guilty plea, provide the trial court and the prosecutor with notice of his intent to appeal the motion to suppress order, and (2) he must timely and properly appeal from the final judgment." State v. Cottrell, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 760 S.E.2d 274, 277 (2014). Here, defendant did not properly give the required notice of his intent to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Consequently, we conclude defendant's arguments concerning the denial of his motion to suppress were waived, and we dismiss his arguments. To the extent defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to preserve his arguments for appeal, we dismiss defendant's pro se arguments without prejudice to his right to seek relief from the trial court.
In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
Chief Judge McGee and Judge ZACHARY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).