Opinion
No. 45577-0-I.
Filed: June 11, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 99-8-03384-3, Hon. John M. Darrah, November 15, 1999, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Associates Pllc, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.
Eric Broman, Nielsen Broman Assoc. Pllc, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/Appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Zachary C. Wagnild, King Co Pros Ofc Rm W554, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2312.
Marlon Tramble appeals from the order of disposition entered following a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. Tramble'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 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.
Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185, quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
This procedure has been followed. Tramble's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Tramble was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Appellant 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 for appellant:
1. Was the evidence sufficient to support the court's finding that it appeared as though Webb and Tramble were making hand exchanges?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to support the guilty verdict?
3. Did the State fail to prove that the crime occurred on June 25, 1999?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
1. Did the information adequately inform Tramble of the nature and cause of the crime charged?
2. Does the error in the findings of fact as to the date of the offense require a remand for entry of corrected findings?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.