State Of Washington, Respondent V. Emmanuel Mensah, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
EMMANUEL MENSAH,
Appellant.
No. 85503-4-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM. Emmanuel Mensah appeals a judgment and sentence imposed
upon his guilty plea to two counts of assault in the third 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 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744) (alterations in original).
This procedure has been followed. Mensah’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Mensah was served with a copy of the brief, and informed of
his 	right 	to 	file 	a 	statement 	of 	additional 	grounds 	for 	review. 	Mensah 	filed 	a
supplemental brief.

No. 85503-4-I/2
-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) whether the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied Mensah’s CrR 4.2(f) motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2)
whether Mensah’s guilty pleas were involuntary because he received misadvice as to a
direct sentencing consequence; and (3) whether Mensah’s pleas were involuntary
because he did not understand the elements of the offense to which he pleaded guilty.
The court also specifically considered the following issues raised by Mensah: (1)
whether counsel’s ineffective assistance and Mensah’s mental status provided a basis
to withdraw his pleas, and (2) whether sufficient evidence supports the charges against
Mensah. 	The issues raised by counsel and by Mensah are wholly frivolous. 	The
motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT: