Opinion
No. COA11–1557.
2012-08-21
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark Alan WATERS.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Carole Biggers, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Richard Croutharmel, for the defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 13 October 2011 by Judge Alan Z. Thornburg in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 June 2012. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Carole Biggers, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Richard Croutharmel, for the defendant.
THIGPEN, Judge.
Mark Alan Waters (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court's 13 October 2011 judgments revoking his probation. We affirm.
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 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 by providing defendant with the documents necessary for him to do so.
Counsel directs our attention to two possible issues that he has considered and determined have no merit: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking defendant's probation rather than modifying it; and (2) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by inquiring into whether the trial court had set defendant's activated prison terms to run consecutively rather than concurrently. We agree with counsel's assessment that these issues lack any merit.
Further, 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 examined the record and transcript to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is frivolous. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
AFFIRMED.