STATE v. JONES (2023)

Defendant Patrick Horatio Jones, Jr., appeals from a judgment entered upon his guilty plea. Counsel for Defendant filed an Anders brief on Defendant's behalf. After careful review, we affirm.

On 31 January 2022, Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to charges of first-degree forcible rape and first-degree kidnapping, in exchange for dismissal of numerous additional charges. The State also stipulated to two mitigating factors for sentencing purposes, and the parties agreed to a sentence in the mitigated range of 180 to 276 months. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment in accordance with its terms, sentencing Defendant to a term of 180 to 276 months in the custody of the North Carolina Division of Adult Correction. The trial court also ordered that Defendant register as a sex offender and enroll in satellite-based monitoring, each for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant timely filed notice of appeal.

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant on appeal has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief. Counsel thus 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, reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to file his own written arguments with this Court, and by providing him with the documents necessary to do so.

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 his Anders brief, Defendant's counsel raises four potential issues for our review, none of which have merit, based on our careful review of the record. Defendant thus is not entitled to relief on these bases.

As required by Anders and Kinch, we have conducted a full examination of the record for any issue with arguable merit. We have been unable to find any error, and we conclude that this appeal presents no issue that might entitle Defendant to relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered in this case.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

ZACHARY, Judge.

Judges HAMPSON and GRIFFIN concur.