State of Washington v. Delbert Leon Nichols ( 2019 )

FILED
AUGUST 20, 2019
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 36639-1-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
DELBERT LEON NICHOLS, )
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, A.C.J. — Delbert Nichols appeals his convictions for felony harassment
and violation of an anti-harassment order. His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw on grounds there is no good faith argument for 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), a 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 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).
No. 36639-1-III
State v. Nichols
Mr. Nichols's attorney has complied with this procedure. Mr. Nichols has not
filed a statement of additional grounds for review. After independently reviewing the
issues identified in counsel's Anders brief and the State's responsive briefing, we agree
that none of the recited issues merits relief on appeal. 1
Because the issues identified by counsel are wholly frivolous, the motion to
withdraw is granted, subject to compliance with RAP l 8.3(a)(4). The appeal is
dismissed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Q_
Pennell, A.CJ.
WE CONCUR:
1
Counsel has identified the issues of ( 1) evidentiary sufficiency, (2) double
jeopardy, (3) hardship excusal of jurors, (4) ineffective assistance of counsel, and
(5) offender score calculation as the issues most likely to have merit.
2