STATE v. CLIFTON, 49417-1-I (Wash.App. 5-12-2003)

No. 49417-1-IThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: May 12, 2003 DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of King County Docket No: 01-1-03335-9 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 08/30/2001

Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc (Appearing Pro Se), Attorney at Law, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.

Verlee Clifton (Appearing Pro Se), Wash Corr Ctr for Women #252389, 9601 Bujacich Rd. N.W., P. O. Box 17, Gig Harbor, WA 98335-0017.

Christopher Gibson (Appearing Pro Se), Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104-1622.

David Bruce Koch (Appearing Pro Se), Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104-1622.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Patrick C Cook, King Co Courthouse W554, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2385.

Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.

PER CURIAM.

Verlee Clifton appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for one count of delivery of a controlled substance. Clifton’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. Clifton’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Clifton was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant’s right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Clifton did not file a supplemental brief.

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 State prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

2. Did the trial court err when it denied Clifton’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution?

3. Did the trial court err in denying the defense request for an exceptional sentence below the standard range?

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

GROSSE and BAKER, JJ., concur.