Opinion
No. 50992-6-I
April 25, 2005.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-1-04915-6. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 08/05/2002. Judge signing: Hon. Michael J Fox.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Attorney at Law, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Jason Brett Saunders, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.
Cla Wright — information only (Appearing Pro Se) #792414, 1313 North 13th St., Walla Walla, WA 99362.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Erin Hairopoulos Becker, King County Prosecutors Office, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
Prosecuting Atty King County King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Clarence Wright appeals his convictions for four counts of first degree robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Wright'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. Wright's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Wright 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 not 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 issues raised by counsel:
1. Did the information adequately inform Wright of the elements of charged offenses?
2. Does Wright's guilty plea meet constitutional and court rule requirements for a valid guilty plea?
3. Did the sentencing court err in failing to find that Wright's convictions encompassed the same criminal conduct?
4. Is the sentence condition prohibiting Wright from entering any Subway shops overbroad?
5. Can Wright can be punished both for first degree robbery and a firearm enhancement?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue: Does the portion of Wright's sentence requiring him to provide a DNA sample violate his federal or state constitutional rights against unreasonable searches?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.