Opinion
No. 60456-2-I.
July 7, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 07-1-09030-1, Laura Gene Middaugh, J., entered July 23, 2007.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Bibbs appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on his conviction for theft in the second degree. Bibbs' 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 and Anders v. California, the motion to withdraw must:
78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970).
386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
[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. Bibbs' counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Bibbs was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Bibbs has since filed a pro se statement of additional grounds for review.
The material 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 issue raised by counsel:
Was the guilty plea made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently?
The court also considered the following additional issues raised by Bibbs in his "Statement of Additional Grounds for Review."
Bibbs also contends that his guilty plea is infirm because he was not advised regarding the consequences of pleading guilty. This issue is clearly encompassed in the argument Bibbs' appointed counsel raises on appeal.
1. Was Bibbs denied effective assistance of counsel?
2. Whether the sentencing court miscalculated his offender score as five points?
The issues raised by Bibbs and his appellate counsel are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.