An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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 Procedu re.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA 14

- 1134 Filed: 5 May 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Union County No s . 80 CRS 2302, 3176 KENNETH DARRELL HAMMONDS

Appeal by defendant from order entered 22 May 2014 by Judge W. David Lee
in Union County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April 2015

. Attorney General Ro y Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Justin M. Hampton , for the State. Kimberly P. Hoppin , for defendant

- appellant.

TYSON , Judge.

Kenneth Darrell Hammonds (“Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of first

degree rape and kidna p ping on 19 June 1980. The trial court sentenced D efendant to life imprisonment for rape, and 25 to 35 years imprisonm ent for kidnapping. Defendant appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Supre me Court, which found

no error. State v. Hammonds , 301 N.C. 713 , 272 S.E.2d 856 (1981). Thereafter Defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing but the trial court found there was no evidence available for testing. We affirm the trial court’s order. I. BackgroundSTATE V. HAMMONDS Opinion of the Court

- 2

- On 10 December 2009, D efendant filed a motion to locate and preserve evidence and a motion for DNA testing. Defendant also filed an affidavit of actual innoc ence. Coun sel was appointed to represent D efendant and the trial court ordered

any physical evidence relating to D efendant’s case to be preserved and inventoried. On 8 July 2011, counsel wrote D efendant and informed him that “there [was] no record of what happened” to the evidence in his case. On 30 January 2014, D efendant filed a “Motion for Resolution of DNA Testing”
in Union County Superior Court

. On 19 February 2014, the trial court ordered that the State “file a written response detailing efforts to locate and pr eserve physical evidence[.]” On 20 March 2014, the State filed an answer stating no evidence was in the custody of the Union County Sheriff’s Department pertaining to D efend ant’s case. A he aring was held on 5 May 2014. The trial court heard testimony from Linda Broome, the evidence custodian at the Union County Sheriff’s Department , and Lieutenant Tony Rushing, a supervisor who was responsible for destruction of evidence. Both testified that they were unable to loc ate any evidence pertaining to Defendant’s case.
The trial court concluded no biological evidence was available for testing in this case, but ordered the Union County Sheriff’s Department to “not destroy and i n fact preserve any evidence that might hereafter be found . . . [and it ] be report ed immediately to the Court[.]” Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.
II. Anders v. CaliforniaSTATE V. HAMMONDS Opinion of the Court

- 3

- Counsel appointed to represent D efendant has been unable to identi fy 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. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that s he has co mplied 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 (1 985), by advising D efendant of h is right to file written arguments with this Court and providing h im with the doc uments necessary to do so. III. Conclusion Defendant has not filed any written arguments on h is own behalf with this Court. A reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to det ermine whether any issues of arguable merit appear there in . We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. The trial court’s order from which Defendant appealed is affirmed.
A FFIRMED

. Judge s BRYANT and DIETZ concur. Report per Rule 30(e).