STATE v. GREENE (2018)

On 8 September 2015, Donald Eugene Greene (“defendant”) was charged by bills of indictment with first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, felonious larceny of a vehicle, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant initially entered a not guilty plea and sought a jury trial. However, in the midst of the pretrial motions hearing, defendant entered into a plea arrangement with the State, under the terms of which he agreed to plead guilty to second degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In exchange, the State agreed to an active sentence of 285 to 354 months and to a dismissal of the remaining charges. After defendant entered his guilty plea, the trial court found that he was a Level III offender with seven prior record points. This calculation included three out-of-state felony convictions which were classified by default as Class I felonies. The trial court thereafter sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea arrangement. 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 full examination 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 defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Counsel directs our attention to potential issues on appeal, such as the calculation of defendant's prior record level, but acknowledges that he is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief.

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. We have found no error on the part of the trial court in the calculation of defendant's prior record level for sentencing purposes. Additionally, 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 that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have also examined the record for possible prejudicial error and found none.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

ELMORE, Judge.

Judges TYSON and ZACHARY concur.