Opinion
No. 59986-1-I.
December 22, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-1-07082-6, Linda Lau, J., entered February 7, 2007.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Garrott appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of residential burglary. Garrott'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. Garrott's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Garrott was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Garrott then filed a statement of additional grounds for review.
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 the trial court erred in denying Garrott's motion to withdraw his guilty plea?
2. Whether Garrott was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing?
3. Whether the trial court violated Garrott's right to a speedy sentencing?
The court also considered the following issues raised by Garrott in his statement of additional grounds on review:
1. Whether Garrott was denied effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations?
2. Whether Garrott was denied effective assistance of counsel during the motion to withdraw his guilty plea?
3. Whether the State acted vindictively by charging Garrott with an additional offense?
The issues raised by Garrott and his appellate counsel are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.