IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 70939-9-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE CD
v. I
CO
C.A.G., UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DOB: 7/26/96, CO ':--] ;.o
Appellant. FILED: November 3, 2014
PER CURIAM. C.A.G. appeals his order on disposition on a charge of
obstructing a law enforcement officer after a fact-finding hearing in King County
Superior Court No. 12-8-02278-1 SEA. C.A.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, 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.
Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California. 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. C.A.G.'s counsel on appeal filed a briefwith
the motion to withdraw. C.A.G. was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the
No. 70939-9-1/2
right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He has not filed a statement of
additional grounds and 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:
1. Whether police lawfully entered the house despite violation of "knock and
announce" rule?
2. Did the State present sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the order is affirmed.
For the court: