State Of Washington, Respondent V. Daniel Bruce Baral, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 79746-8-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DANIEL BRUCE BARAL,
Appellant.
_______________________________ FILED: February 18, 2020
PER CURIAM. Daniel B. Baral seeks to withdraw his guilty plea to third
degree assault. 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 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744) (alterations in
original).

No. 79746-8-1/2
This procedure has been followed. Baral’s counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. Baral was served with a copy of the brief and informed
of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Baral 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: whether Baral’s guilty plea was
knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
The issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw
is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT:
F
II 	~
I 	/