John St. Jacques appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following a conviction for three counts of forgery. St. Jacques' 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, 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, supra, at 185 quoting Anders v. California, (supra) at 744.
This procedure has been followed. St. Jacques' counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. St. Jacques was served with a copy of the brief and informed of a criminal appellant's right to file a pro se supplemental brief. St. Jacques did not file a 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. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in making numerous evidentiary rulings?
2. Did the prosecutor commit misconduct during rebuttal argument when she stated that St. Jacques is employed by the Postal Service?
3. Was there sufficient evidence to support St. Jacques'
conviction of three counts of forgery?
4. Did the trial court err in calculating St. Jacques'
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and ...