State Of Washington, Respondent V. Robert Sehorn, Appellant

-J
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
ROBERT SEHORN, JR.,
Appellant.
No. 68623-2-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	MAY 	2 8 2013
PER CURIAM. 	Robert Sehorn, Jr., appeals an order granting the State's motion
under CrR 7.8(a) to correct clerical errors in two no-contact orders. 	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, 18 L Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967),
the motion to withdraw must:
0 	(1) be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might
•z 	^ 	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.
Thftbbald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders. 386 U.S. at 744).
:j5i_ 	— This procedure has been followed. 	Sehorn's counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Sehorn was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his
right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. 	Sehorn did not file a
supplemental brief.

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 issue raised by counsel:
Did the superior court err in amending the no-contact orders?
The issue raised by counsel is wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
)-€xn^^ 	r\.CSX^