Opinion
No. 56609-1-I.
July 3, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 97-1-00337-0, Steven J. Mura, J., entered June 7, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Eric Broman, Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122-2842.
Marcus Harrell/Doc# 773400 (Appearing Pro Se), Mcc, PO Box 888, C-209, Monroe, WA 98272.
Jennifer M. Winkler, Nielson, Broman Koch, PLLC, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122-2842.
Counsel for Respondent(s), David Stuart McEachran, Whatcom Co Courthouse, 311 Grand Ave, Bellingham, WA 98225-4048.
Hilary A. Thomas, Whatcom County Prosecutors Office, 311 Grand Ave Ste 201, Bellingham, WA 98225-4038.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Harrell appeals from a superior court order denying Harrell's CrR 7.8(b) motion. Harrell'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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
[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. Harrell's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Harrell was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file 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 and/or appellant:
1. Does Andress constitute a material change in the law that allows Harrell to challenge his conviction notwithstanding the time-bar in RCW 10.73.090?
In re Pers. Restraint of Andress, 147 Wn.2d 602, 56 P.3d 981 (2002).
2. Has Harrell shown a basis to revisit the claim from his prior appeal that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because it lacked a factual basis and was involuntary?
3. Whether the failure to determine the identity of the person, other than Harrell and Payne, who left blood or DNA at the crime scene rendered Harrell's plea involuntary?
4. Was there a factual basis for Harrell's plea to the deadly weapon allegation?
5. Did the trial court err by failing to require further development of the facts regarding the murder weapon and DNA?
6. Does Andress require vacating Harrell's conviction because this prosecution was predicated upon an assault?
7. Did Harrell's trial counsel provide ineffective assistance in advising him to enter a guilty plea?
8. Was there a factual basis for the plea?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
Is Harrell entitled to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to inform him that he faced a mandatory two year period of community placement?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
COLEMAN, APPELWICK, and BECKER, JJ.