Opinion
No. 47144-9-I.
Filed: January 22, 2002. UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 98-1-02823-4, Hon. Ann Schindler, July 24, 2000, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Richard R. Tassano, Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Thomas M. Kummerow, 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.
Sharon A. Dear, W554 King Co Courthouse, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2312.
Steveland Jackie Gamble appeals from the judgments and sentences entered following his two convictions for delivery of cocaine. Gamble'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:
be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
A copy of counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and
time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses;
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. Gamble's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Gamble was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He did not file such a 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 for appellant:
1. Did the charging documents state all of the essential elements of the delivery of controlled substance offenses?
2. Were Gamble's guilty pleas knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
3. Did the trial court err in denying Gamble's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.