Opinion
No. 59869-4-I.
April 14, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-8-04538-8, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered March 21, 2007.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ceasar Valdovinos appeals from the disposition entered following his convictions in juvenile court for first degree burglary and second degree assault. Valdovinos' 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. Valdovinos' counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Valdovinos was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Valdovinos' 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 potential issue raised by counsel, i.e. whether the convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. That issue is wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.