No. 48417-6-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: January 22, 2002. UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 018008171, Hon. Charles V. Johnson, May 3, 2001, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Associates Pllc, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.
David B. Koch, Nielsen Broman Associates Pllc, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/Appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Barbara C. Bosch, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
PER CURIAM.
Terrell Houston appeals from the order of disposition entered following a conviction for first degree robbery. Houston’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] an 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. Houston’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Houston was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant’s right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Houston 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 court err in allowing the State to amend the information on the first day of trial?
2. Did the court err in admitting Houston’s custodial statements?
3. Was there sufficient evidence to support Houston’s conviction?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to timely file the brief in support of a motion for a disposition outside the standard range?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.