Filed: Dec. 19, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2011
Summary: UNPUBLISHED OPINION PER CURIAM. M.G. appeals from the order of disposition entered following a conviction of robbery in the second degree. M.G.'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 , 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 referr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED OPINION PER CURIAM. M.G. appeals from the order of disposition entered following a conviction of robbery in the second degree. M.G.'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 , 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 referri..
More
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
M.G. appeals from the order of disposition entered following a conviction of robbery in the second degree. M.G.'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, 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. M.G.'s counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. M.G. was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He did not file a statement of additional grounds.
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. Whether sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's adjudication?
2. Whether M.G.'s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
LAU and DWYER, JJ., concurs.
