State Of Washington v. Mikheal Boswell ( 2017 )

COURT OF APPEALS WV I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE dPikikgi-Ilkdilkll
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 76743-7-1
Respondent, )
) DIVISION ONE
v. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MIKHEAL D. BOSWELL, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: July 31, 2017
)
APPELWICK, J. — Mikheal Boswell challenges his jury conviction for rape in
the second degree. 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 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 (alterations in original) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at
744).
This procedure has been followed. Boswell's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. Boswell was served with a copy of the brief and
informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Boswell
did not file a supplemental brief.
No. 76743-7-1/2
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 issues raised by counsel:
1. Is Boswell's second degree rape conviction supported by sufficient
evidence?
2. Did the trial court err in excluding reference to preliminary breath test
readings?
3. Did the trial court err in permitting opinion evidence from the State's expert
witness?
4. Did the trial court err in refusing to give a jury instruction on the weight and
credibility of Boswell's out-of-court statements?
5. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that Boswell had to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably believed that L.E. was not
mentally incapacitated or physically helpless?
These potential issues are wholly frivolous. Nor can we find any other
arguable issues of merit in this case.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR:
59c1