State Of Washington v. Lavell Demeatreous Lewis ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,
    No. 75468-8-1
    Respondent,
    V.                                     DIVISION ONE
    LAVELL LEWIS,                                     UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    Appellant.                   FILED: May 14, 2018
    PER CURIAM — Lavell Lewis appeals from the judgment and sentence
    entered after he pleaded guilty to communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
    Lewis'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 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. 
    Theobalci, 78 Wash. 2d at 185
    (quoting Anders v. 
    California, 386 U.S. at 744
    ).
    This procedure has been followed. Lewis's counsel on appeal filed a brief with
    the motion to withdraw. Lewis was served with a copy of the brief and informed of
    the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Lewis did not file a
    statement of additional grounds for review.
    No. 75468-8-1/2
    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 the trial court erred in granting Lewis's motion to proceed pro se?
    2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Lewis competent to stand trial and
    plead guilty.
    3. Whether Lewis's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
    4. Whether the trial court erred in denying Lewis's motion to withdraw his guilty
    plea?
    The potential issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion
    to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
    For the court:
    Tx6k-ep ( .
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 75468-8

Filed Date: 5/14/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021