An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
NO. COA14-54
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 17 June 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Craven County
No. 09 CRS 51899
ANACIN WILLIAM PHILLIPS
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 25 July 2013 by
Judge John E. Nobles, Jr., in Craven County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 May 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Daniel P. O’Brien, for the State.
Michael J. Reece for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.
Defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon
with intent to kill inflicting serious injury on 29 September
2011. The trial court sentenced him as a prior record level
(“PRL”) IV offender to an active prison term of 133 to 169
months imprisonment. On appeal, we remanded for resentencing
based on our conclusion that the court had misclassified one of
defendant’s two Ohio prior convictions for the purpose of
-2-
calculating defendant’s PRL. See State v. Phillips, __ N.C.
App. __, __, 742 S.E.2d 338, 343-44 (2013) (citing N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1340.14(a), (e) (2011)), disc. review denied, __
N.C. __, 753 S.E.2d 671 (2014). Applying the proper
classification, we found that “defendant’s prior record level
points for felony sentencing would be reduced from ten to seven
points” and his PRL would be reduced from IV to III. Id. at __,
742 S.E.2d at 344. On remand, the trial court resentenced
defendant as a PRL III offender to a presumptive prison term of
114 to 146 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open
court.
Counsel appointed to represent defendant is 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. He
shows 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.
-3-
Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own
behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time for him to do so
has expired. In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined
the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit
appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible
prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly
frivolous.
NO ERROR.
Judges STEPHENS and ERVIN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).