Opinion
No. 61241-7-I.
December 22, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-00612-4, Laura Gene Middaugh, J., entered January 17, 2008.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lewis appeals an order modifying his judgment and sentence for second degree rape. The order imposed two 40-day sanctions for violations of the terms of Lewis's community placement. Lewis'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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (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. Lewis's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Lewis was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his 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. Did Lewis receive adequate notice of the sentence violations?
2. Did the State prove the violations by a preponderance of the evidence?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
We note that Lewis has served the trial court's sanctions and therefore the potential issues raised by counsel are moot.
For the court: