State Of Washington v. Cesar Alberto Garza ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •     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    C.A.G.,                                         UNPUBLISHED OPINION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:
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 70939-9

Filed Date: 11/3/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021