State v. Johnson

Full title: THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TRENTON SCOTT JOHNSON, Appellant

Court: The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Apr 20, 2009

149 Wn. App. 1051 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

149 Wash. App. 1051

Opinion

No. 59997-6-I.

April 20, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 07-1-00745-2, Richard J. Thorpe, J., entered May 2, 2007.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Trenton Johnson appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). Johnson'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 and Anders v. California, ² the motion to withdraw must:

1 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970).

2 386 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.[³]

3 Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185, quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

This procedure has been followed. Johnson's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Johnson was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Johnson 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:

Should the trial court have suppressed the piece of rock cocaine recovered during the warrantless search of Johnson's mouth?

The court also considered the following additional issue raised by Johnson in his "Statement of Additional Grounds for Review":

Was the police officer telling the truth when he testified at the suppression hearing that certain people had previously told him Johnson kept cocaine in his mouth?

The issues raised by Johnson and his appellate counsel are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.