STATE v. DAWSTON, 45347-5-I (Wash.App. 7-2-2001)

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent v. DARRYL DAWSTON, Appellant.

No. 45347-5-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: July 2, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.

Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 98-1-09975-1, Hon. Terrance P. Lukens, September 14, 1999, Judgment or order under review.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.

Sharon J. Blackford, Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/Appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Dawston appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for theft of rental property. Dawston’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. Dawston’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Dawston was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant’s right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Dawston 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 information apprise Dawston of the essential elements of the crime?

2. Was the evidence insufficient to support the trial court’s finding of guilt?

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