State Of Washington, Respondent V. Adam Chau, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
ADAM JOSEPH CHAU,
Appellant.
No. 83794-0-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM. Adam Chau appeals a trial court order denying his motion
to waive interest on restitution. 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).

No. 83794-0-I/2
2
This procedure has been followed. 	Chau’s counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. Chau was served with a copy of the brief and informed
of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Chau 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: whether the trial court misinterpreted
RCW 10.82.090 and thereby erred in denying the motion to waive interest.
The issue raised by counsel is wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT: