STATE v. MOREHOUSE, 47384-1-I (Wash.App. 1-22-2002)

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent v. ROBERT TAYLOR MOREHOUSE, Appellant.

No. 47384-1-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: January 22, 2002. UNPUBLISHED OPINION.

Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County, No. 98-1-01071-1, Hon. Thomas J. Wynne, November 29, 2000, Judgment or order under review.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Associates Pllc, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.

Catherine L. Floit, Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 25678, Seattle, WA 98125-1178.

David B. Koch, Nielsen Broman Associates Pllc, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104.

Counsel for Respondent(s), James H. Krider, Snohomish County Prosecutor, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4060.

Constance M. Crawley, Snohomish Co Courthouse, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Morehouse appeals from the superior court order entered on his post-conviction motion to either clarify or modify the sentence imposed on his conviction of one count of third degree rape of a child and one count of third degree child molestation. Morehouse’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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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. Morehouse’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Morehouse was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a pro se supplemental brief. No supplemental brief has been filed in the case.

The relevant 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 also independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel on appeal:

1. Did the superior court err by failing to reduce the period of community placement imposed on Morehouse’s conviction of third degree child molestation?

2. Should the court have clarified the condition of community placement that Morehouse participate and make progress in sexual deviancy treatment?

3. Should the court have stricken the condition that Morehouse submit to polygraph and plethysmograph testings as directed by Morehouse’s Community Correction’s Officer?

These potential issues are wholly frivolous. Nor can we find any other arguable issues of merit in this case.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.