State Of Washington, Respondent V. Dylan Scott Mullins, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 79579-1-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DYLAN SCOTT MULLINS,
Appellant.
PER CURIAM — Dylan Mullins challenges the judgment and sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to first degree murder with a firearm, first degree
burglary with a firearm, and first degree arson. His court-appointed appellate
counsel has filed a motion to withdraw asserting that there are no arguable
issues to appeal. Such requests for permission to withdraw must (1) be
accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal, (2) be provided to the indigent defendant, (3) allow time for
the defendant to raise any points desired, and (4) ‘‘the court—not counsel—then
proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the
case is wholly frivolous.” State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 185, 470 P.2d 188
(1970) (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.
2d 493 (1967)).

No. 79579-1-1/2
This procedure has been followed. Mullins’s counsel has filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. Mullins was served with a copy of the brief and informed
of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He 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 potential issues raised by counsel, including: (1) whether Mullins’s guilty plea
was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (2) whether Mullins’s motion to withdraw
his plea should have been granted; (3) whether Mullins was denied effective
assistance of counsel regarding the decision to plead guilty; (4) whether the trial
court erred by not imposing an exceptional sentence below the standard range;
and (5) whether the trial court meaningfully considered the requisite mitigating
factors in declining to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT:
F
7
AAJA I