State Of Washington v. Vincent James Pierce ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
o
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 69715-3-1 po ifiCJ
Respondent,
Q o-n,.
) DIVISION ONE
v. CP ::r^.l
VINCENT JAMES PIERCE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
s ^
o3 c3.:::
Appellant. ) FILED: October 28, 2013
PER CURIAM. Vincent Pierce challenges his conviction for second degree
assault and third degree assault of a child. His 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 Wash. 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, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. Pierce's counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. Pierce was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his
right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Pierce did notfile a
supplemental brief.
No. 69715-3-1/2
The material 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:
Did the State prove each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable
doubt?
The issue raised by counsel is wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT:
\ihJJQ