State Of Washington v. Ronald Lee Burkes ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No.76867-1-I
Respondent,
v. ) DIVISION ONE
RONALD LEE BURKES, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
)
Appellant. ) FILED: March 18, 2019
PER CURIAM. Ronald Lee Burkes appeals the judgment and sentence entered on
May 17, 2017 following a conviction of robbery in the first degree, with a special
allegation that he. was armed with a firearm at the time of the crime. 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, 87S. 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 Wash. 2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. Burkes’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw, and Burkes filed a supplemental brief.
No. 76867-1-112
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. Whether the traffic stop of Burkes’s car by police officers was pretextual, in
violation of article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution?
2. Whether the trial court erred in twice denying defense motions to dismiss
under CrR 8.3(b) based on two incidents of alleged mismanagement by the
State?
3. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting call detail
records as evidence of the location of Burkes’s cell phone around the time of
the robbery?
4. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting cell phone
records on the ground they were insufficiently authenticated?
5. Whether reversal is required because the to-convict instruction was broader
than the conduct identified in the charging language?
6. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by
suggesting that no evidence supported Burkes’s theory of the case?
7. Whether the trial court erred in denying Burkes’s request for an exceptional
sentence below the standard range?
The court also considered the following issues raised by Burkes in his statement of
additional grounds for review:
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to charge and convict Burkes?
No. 76867-1-1/3
2. Whether Burkes received ineffective assistance of counsel on the ground that
defense counsel failed to notify the trial court that Burkes was legally
permitted to carry a firearm?
These issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and
the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
~c•