No. 46359-4-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: August 20, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 99-1-06869-2, Hon. William L. Downing, March 3, 2000, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Shannon B. Marsh, 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.
Endel R. Kolde, Criminal Div Rm W554, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2312.
PER CURIAM. .
Tommie Lewis appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following his conviction for one count of delivery of cocaine. Lewis’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, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), 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. State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. Lewis’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Lewis was provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Lewis 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. Whether the information was constitutionally sufficient?
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Lewis’s conviction? 3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion for a mistrial based upon trial counsel’s refusal to allow him to testify in his own defense? 4. Whether Lewis was denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to prepare adequately for trial? 5. Whether Lewis was denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to move for a mistrial after the deputy prosecutor violated a motion in limine?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.