Opinion
No. 45667-9-I.
Filed: June 11, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County, No. 99-1-00406-4, Hon. Stuart C. French, October 15, 1999, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Oliver R. Davis, Washington Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Seth A. Fine, Snohomish Co. Prosecutor's Office, Snohomish Co Pros Office, 3000 Rockefeller, Everett, WA 98201.
David F. Thiele, Snohomish Co Pros Att Ofc, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4060.
Karen D. Moore, Sno Co Pros Aty M/S 504, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201.
Peggy Peil appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Peil'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.
Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185, quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
This procedure has been followed. Peil's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Peil was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief. Appellant 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 following potential issues raised by counsel for appellant:
1. Did the information inform Peil of the essential elements of the crime?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to prove Peil guilty of possession of a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
1. Was Peil denied effective assistance of counsel because her trial attorney did not bring a motion to suppress evidence?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.