Opinion
No. 53308-8-I
Filed: November 8, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 94-1-01978-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 10/27/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Patricia H Aitken.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Attorney at Law, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Oliver Ross Davis, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.
Jason Brett Saunders, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Dennis John McCurdy, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2362.
Michael Williamson appeals the trial court's denial of his proposed order amending the community placement conditions of the judgment and sentence entered following Williamson's convictions for second degree rape and violation of a no-contact order. The trial court subsequently entered an order amending the community placement conditions consistent with its earlier oral ruling and with this court's holding in Williamson's prior appeal. Williamson'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. Williamson's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Williamson was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se statement of additional grounds for review. 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:
1. Did the sentencing court exceed its authority in ordering Williamson to undergo sexual deviancy counseling?
2. Did the sentencing court's 1999 order (which still required Williamson to submit to polygraph and plethysmograph testing at the request of his CCO) exceed its authority?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
GROSSE, J., COX, C.J. and ELLINGTON, A.C.J.