STATE v. MCPHAIL (2019)

Defendant Rayquan Love McPhail appeals from a judgment entered upon his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of assault on a police officer inflicting physical injury.

On appeal, Defendant's counsel has represented that she is “unable to identify any discernable 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 she has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 not filed any written arguments on his own behalf, and a reasonable time within which he could have done so has passed.

In accordance with Anders and Kinch, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom, including, but not limited to, the potential issues identified by counsel in Defendant's brief. We agree with counsel that those issues lack merit. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

DILLON, Judge.

Judges DIETZ and MURPHY concur.