¶ 1 Kareem Abdullah Kirk (“Defendant”) appeals from an order denying his motion to locate and preserve evidence and for post-conviction DNA testing. We affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2 Defendant was convicted of abduction of a child and four counts of statutory sexual offense. On direct appeal, this Court found no error in the jurys conviction, but vacated the judgment entered thereon for resentencing. See State v. Kirk, 221 N.C. App. 245, 725 S.E.2d 923 (2012) (unpublished).
¶ 3 On 26 February 2020, Defendant filed a pro se motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. The motion was denied without hearing by written order entered 19 June 2020. Defendant filed a pro se written notice of appeal in the trial court 9 July 2020.
II. Anders Brief
¶ 4 Counsel appointed to represent Defendant on appeal from the DNA order states she is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Counsel asks this Court to 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, 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 to do so.
¶ 5 Defendant has filed a pro se brief with this Court. Based on our independent review of the record, his arguments have no merit.
III. Conclusion
¶ 6 In accordance with Anders and Kinch, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues related to the trial courts denial of Defendants motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. We are unable to find any prejudicial error concerning the trial courts DNA order and conclude Defendants appeal is wholly frivolous. The trial courts order is affirmed. It is so ordered.
AFFIRMED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
TYSON, Judge.
Judges INMAN and GORE concur.