STATE v. WINCHESTER

HUNTER, Judge.

On 13 November 2001, the Union County grand jury indicted Raeford Alexander Winchester ("defendant") on charges of felonious larceny, felonious breaking and entering, and with being an habitual felon. Defendant pled guilty to the charges on 26 June 2002. The trial court consolidated the substantive offenses for judgment and sentenced defendant as an habitual felon to a term of 120 to 153 months imprisonment. From the trial court's judgment, defendant appeals. We find no error.

Defendant's counsel brings forward one question on appeal, but presents no arguments in defendant's brief. He states that he "has carefully and diligently reviewed the record, including Judgment and Commitment and the transcript of the hearing . . ." and concludes "that no substantial error appears of record which may be made the subject of Assignment of Error . . . ." He asks this Court "to review the record to determine if plain error was committed by the Court, or in the alternative, if a Petition for Certiorari should be granted pursuant to G.S. 15A-1444(a1)."

By letter dated 15 August 2002, defendant's counsel informed defendant that in his opinion there was no error in defendant's trial and that defendant could file his own arguments in this Court if he so desired. Copies of the transcript, record, the brief filed by counsel, and the State's brief were sent to defendant. Defendant has filed no arguments in this Court.

We hold that defendant's counsel has fully complied with the holdings in 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). Pursuant to Anders and Kinch, we must determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Upon review of the entire record and of the assignment of error noted in the record, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous and also decline to issue a writ of certiorari. We conclude defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges BRYANT and ELMORE concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).