Opinion
No. 64249-9-I.
Filed: January 3, 2011. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 08-1-00839-2, Ronald L. Castleberry, J., entered September 3, 2009.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Darrington appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for first degree assault with a deadly weapon. Darrington'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, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (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. Darrington's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Darrington 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 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 and/or the appellant:
1. Was Darrington's plea made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily?
2. Did the trial court err in denying Darrington's request for an exceptional sentence below the standard range?
3. Does the deadly weapon enhancement violate double jeopardy where use of a deadly weapon is an element of the charge?
4. Did the trial court accept the plea without a sufficient factual basis?
5. Did the trial court fail to make necessary findings to support the deadly weapon enhancement?
6. Was Darrington misinformed about a direct consequence of his plea?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.