State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael J. Evans, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL J. EVANS,
Appellant.
No. 72563-7-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	February 16, 2016
no
ro
en
Per Curiam. 	Michael J. 	Evans appeals from the judgment and 	sentence
entered 	following 	his convictions for theft of a 	motor vehicle and 	first 	degree
trafficking in stolen property. 	Evans'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 ofcounsel'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).
This procedure has been followed. 	Evans's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. 	Evans 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
statement of additional grounds.

No. 72563-7-1/2
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 resentencing court err in failing to consider Evans's same
criminal conduct and wash-out claims?
2. 	Can this court review Evans' same criminal conduct and wash-out
claims under RAP 2.5(c)(1)?
3. 	Did the resentencing court err in denying Evans's request for
new counsel on remand?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
1. 	Was 	Evans's 	counsel 	ineffective 	for 	failing 	to 	argue 	at
resentencing that Evans's same criminal conduct and wash-out claims
were properly raised on remand under RCW 9.94A.530(2)?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. 	Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
%s\ c/<e y 	;Q