State Of Washington, Respondent V. B.m., Appellant.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
No. 68193-1-1 	c=> 	—AC
o
-n
DIVISION ONE
3-
•p>-o m
en rr>;—•
B.M., DOB 4/25/95, 	UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. 	FILED: 	MAY %0 2013
PER CURIAM. 	B.M. appeals from the disposition entered after the juvenile
court found him guilty of third degree theft. 	B.M.'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, 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.
State v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. 	B.M.'s counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	B.M. was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the

right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. 	B.M. did not file 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. 	Whether the information charging B.M. with third degree theft was
constitutionally sufficient?
2. 	Whether the juvenile court erred in concluding that B.M. voluntarily
waived his Miranda rights?
3. 	Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when admitting
evidence?
4. 	Whether sufficient evidence supported the juvenile court's
determination of guilt?
5. 	Whether the juvenile court erred in entering the standard-range
disposition?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
1ycke& }