In re M.J.J.

STROUD

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

Appeal by juvenile from orders entered 14 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 by Judge Sherry F. Alloway in Guilford County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 January 2013.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III by Assistant Attorney General Judith Tillman, for the State.
Jon W. Myers for juvenile-appellant.

STROUD, Judge.

On 30 June 2011, M.J.J. ("Michael") was charged in juvenile petitions alleging delinquency based on attempted second degree rape and attempted second degree sex offense. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on 28 October 2011. At the close of the State's evidence, the State dismissed the attempted 2nd degree sex offense charge. Thereafter, the trial court found Michael. to be delinquent based on the attempted second degree rape offense. The trial court conducted a dispositional hearing on 6 January 2012. The court placed Michael on level two probation for a period of twelve months and ordered him to comply with various conditions of probation. Juvenile. appeals.

Counsel appointed to represent Michael 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 Michael of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so.

Michael 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.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).