State Of Washington, Respondent V. Nathan Rowe, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
NATHAN ROWE,
Appellant.
No. 71322-1-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	March 9, 2015
Per Curiam. 	Nathan Rowe appeals from the judgment and sentence entered
following his conviction for second degree robbery. 	Rowe'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, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396
(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. 	Rowe's counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Rowe received a copy of the brief and filed a statement of
additional grounds for review.
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
issues raised by counsel:
1. 	Did the court err in failing to give a unanimity instruction?
2. 	Is Rowe entitled to relief because no written CrR 3.5 findings were entered?
The court also considered the following arguments raised by Rowe in his
statement of additional grounds for review:
1. 	Whether Rowe's arguments regarding the credibility, weight, and
persuasiveness of the evidence require reversal?
2. 	Whether Rowe established ineffective assistance of counsel?
3. 	Whether Rowe's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. 	Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and Rowe's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
For the court:
•zr\
i
^w$y^