Opinion
No. 50933-1-I, 50935-7-I, 50986-1-I (Consolidated).
Filed: September 15, 2003. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 00-1-10861-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 07/24/2002.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Gregory Charles Link, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Michele Ann Taylor, King Co Pros Office, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
In this consolidated case, Justin Alonzo Watkins appeals from the judgment and sentences entered following his convictions for first degree robbery and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, taking a motor vehicle and attempting to elude, and third degree assault. Watkins' 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, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), the motion to withdraw must:
{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. Watkins' counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Watkins was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief; no such brief has been filed.
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 and the appellant:
1. Did the sentencing court miscalculate Watkins' offender scores?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issues:
1. May Watkins raise potential trial errors that were not raised in the first appeals?
2. Did the sentencing court err in failing to specify the correct period of community custody?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
GROSSE and COX, JJ., concur.