STATE v. CHAN, 145 Wn. App. 1050 (2008)

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. FLORENCE SION CHAN, Appellant.

No. 60715-4-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
July 21, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 07-1-00238-0, Dean Scott Lum, J., entered October 3, 2007.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Florence Chan appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on her conviction for theft in the second degree. Chan’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald[1] and Anders v. California, [2] the motion to withdraw must:

[1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; [4] the court — not counsel — then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.[3]

This procedure has been followed. Chan’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Chan was served with a copy of the brief and informed of her right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Chan did not file a pro se statement of additional grounds for review.

The facts are accurately set forth in counsel’s brief in support of the motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel:

1. Did the department store surveillance video recording violate the appellant’s constitutional rights of privacy?
2. Whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on an uncharged alternative means of committing theft?
3. Whether the evidence supports the finding of guilt?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
Did the charging document state all the essential elements of second degree theft?

The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

[1] 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970).
[2] 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
[3] State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185, quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744.

Page 1051

Tagged: