Opinion
No. 59190-8-I.
April 21, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-1-04695-8, Laura C. Inveen, J., entered November 20, 2006.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theophyllis Robinson appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on his conviction for delivery of cocaine. Robinson'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. Robinson's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Robinson was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Robinson did not file a pro se 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 issue raised by counsel:
Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the delivery conviction?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
Whether the information alleged each essential element of the offense charged?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.