State Of Washington, Respondent V. Beau Richards, Appellant

81284-0WashctappDec 7, 2020

Full text

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
BEAU REYNOLDS RICHARDS,
Appellant.
No. 81284-0-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM. Beau Richards challenges his jury conviction pursuant to a
guilty plea for failure to register as a sex offender. 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 (alterations in original) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. Richards’ counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. Richards was served with a copy of the brief and
No. 81284-0-I/2
2
informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Richards 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 issues raised by counsel: (1) whether the information alleged all of
the essential elements of the offense; (2) whether Richards’ guilty plea was made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; (3) whether Richards’ attorney was ineffective
during the plea process; and (4) whether the sentence imposed was erroneous. The
issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is granted and
the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.