State Of Washington v. Ivan Vladimir Barashkoff ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ]
No. 70712-4-1
Respondent, ] O
a
_ „. ?j
) DIVISION ONE
v. ; o
IVAN VLADIMIR BARASHKOFF, ' UNPUBLISHED OPINION
wC
ro
Appellant. ) FILED: OCT 2 0 2014
PER CURIAM. Ivan Barashkoff appeals a trial court order allowing for
involuntary medical treatment in King County Superior Court No. 13-1-00833-1 SEA.
Barashkoff'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 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 briefshould 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 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. Barashkoff's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. Barashkoff was served with a copy of the brief and
informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He filed a
statement of additional grounds and supplemental brief.
No. 70712-4-1/2
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
issue raised by counsel:
Whether the trial court properly found that the State satisfied each of the Sell'11
criteria to permit the order for involuntary medication?
Appellant pro se also raised and we considered the following potential issues:
Do the Washington State courts have jurisdiction over this case? Was
Barashkoff denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel below and on
appeal and was he denied the right to present a defense?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the order is affirmed.
For the court:
1Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 180-81, 123 S. Ct. 2174, 156 L. Ed. 2d 197 (2003).