COURT OF APPEALS DIV I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
2013 AUG-5 AH 9= i#7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 68379-9-1
Respondent,
v. DIVISION ONE
THOMAS WILLIAMS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: AUG 5 2013
PER CURIAM. Thomas Williams appeals the trial court's order imposing
substance abuse treatment as a condition of sentence and denying his motion to
appoint new counsel. Williams'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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L Ed. 2d 493 (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. Williams's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. Williams was served with a copy of the brief and
No. 68379-9-1/2
informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Williams
filed 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
issue raised by counsel:
Whether sufficient evidence supports the sentencing court's finding that
chemical dependency contributed to the crime?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Williams' motion to
appoint new counsel?
Williams, pro se, also raised following potential issue:
Whether there was a breach of Williams' plea agreement?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
&z#,J