Opinion
Nos. 45973-2-I consolidated with 45974-1-I.
Filed: July 2, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 95-1-07494-1, Hon. Nicole Mac Innes, January 10, 2000, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
David L. Donnan, 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.
Denis A. O'Leary, W554 King Co Courthouse, 516 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Bell appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for possession of cocaine. Bell'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).
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. Bell's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Bell was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Bell 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 informations adequately apprise Bell of the nature of the charges?
2. Did Bell knowingly and intelligently waive his trial rights when he entered the Drug Court Waiver?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in terminating Bell from the Drug Court program?
4. Was the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's findings of guilt?
5. Was Bell's offender score correctly calculated?
6. Did the trial court err in imposing community placement?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.