Opinion
No. 61475-4-I.
September 14, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, King County, No. 06-1-08913-4, Paris K. Kallas, J., entered December 3, 2007.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Queimec Fikilini appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of first degree robbery. Fikilini'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. 7 38, 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. Fikilini's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Fikilini was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He did not file a statement of additional grounds.
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. Whether Fikilini's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
2. Whether the sentencing court miscalculated Fikilini's offender score?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.