Opinion
No. 50870-9-I.
Filed: March 22, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-1-01395-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 07/15/2002. Judge signing: Hon. Dean S Lum.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St. Seattle, WA 98122.
Eric Broman, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Colby Peter Haase, Attorney at Law, 1611 E Republican St. Seattle, WA 98112-4628.
Counsel for Respondent(s), E Bradford Bales, King Co Pros Aty Ofc, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Charles Vorise appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction of one count of first degree criminal trespass and one count of possession of cocaine in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Vorise'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. Vorise's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Vorise was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Vorise did not file a 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 issues raised by counsel:
1. Did the trial court err by granting a motion to continue on the grounds that the prosecutor had previously scheduled out-of-state training?
2. Did the State's argument exhorting the jury not to give the defendant a discount by convicting him only of the lesser included offense constitute an improper request to consider punishment that required the trial court to grant a mistrial?
3. Did the trial court err by admitting the crack pipe in the absence of proper "chain-of-custody" evidence?
4. Did the trial court err by allowing the jury to amend the verdict form for the possession of cocaine charge that apparently first was completed to read "not guilty"?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue: Whether the information adequately informed Vorise of the nature and cause of the charges against him?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
KENNEDY and BAKER, JJ., concur.