Opinion
No. 50722-2-I.
Filed: April 12, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 98-1-06776-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 06/06/2002. Judge signing: Hon. Gregory Canova.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Christopher Gibson, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Allan Parmelee (Appearing Pro Se), 202020181, King Co. Jail, 500 5th Ave, 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.
Michael Paul Mohandeson, King Co Pros Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
James Morrissey Whisman, King Co Pros Aty/Appellate Unit, 700 5th Ave Ste 1850, Seattle, WA 98104-5009.
Allan Parmelee appeals his convictions for one count of felony stalking and three counts of gross misdemeanor violations of no-contact or restraining orders. Parmelee'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. Parmelee's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Parmelee was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review, which he has done.
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 issue raised by counsel: Was the evidence sufficient to find the defendant willfully failed to make the required payments toward his legal financial obligations?
The court also considered the following potential issues raised by appellant pro se:
1. Whether the defendant received adequate notice of the allegations of community supervision violations to satisfy due process?
2. Did the trial court err by denying the defendant's prehearing pro se motion for notice of the charges?
3. Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object, prepare for the hearing or attempt to gather exculpatory facts favorable to the defendant?
4. Whether the trial judge denied the defendant a fair hearing because of vindictiveness?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
BECKER and AGID, JJ., concur.