State v. Barashkoff

Full title: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. IVAN VLADIMIR BARASHKOFF, Appellant.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

Date published: Oct 20, 2014

No. 70712-4-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2014)

Opinion

70712-4-I

10-20-2014

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. IVAN VLADIMIR BARASHKOFF, Appellant.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM

Ivan Barashkoff appeals a trial court order allowing for involuntary medical treatment in King County Superior Court No. 13-1-00833-1 SEA. Barashkoff'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.

Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).

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

Whether the trial court properly found that the State satisfied each of the Sell'^[1] criteria to permit the order for involuntary medication?

[1] Sell v. United States. 539 U.S. 166, 180-81, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003).

Appellant pro se also raised and we considered the following potential issues:

Do the Washington State courts have jurisdiction over this case? Was Barashkoff denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel below and on appeal and was he denied the right to present a defense?

The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the order is affirmed.