Opinion
No. 46702-6-I.
Filed: June 11, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, Docket No: 001020038; Judgment or order under review, Date filed: 04/25/2000.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Associates Pllc, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.
Christopher Gibson, Nielsen Broman Assoc. Pllc, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/Appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Gregory A. Holloway, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Ave #w554, Seattle, WA 98104-2312.
David Palmer appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Palmer'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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (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. Palmer's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Palmer was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Palmer did not 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:
1. Was the substance sufficient to convict Palmer of possession of a controlled substance?
2. Did the record on direct review reveal that counsel was deficient such that it deprived Palmer of his right to effective assistance of counsel?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.