State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Tsegai Gebrezgiaher, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL TSEGAI GEBREZGIAHER,
Appellant.
No. 81052-9-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM. Michael Gebrezgiaher challenges his jury conviction for
felony hit and run. 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).
This procedure has been followed. Gebrezgiaher’s counsel on appeal filed
a brief with the motion to withdraw. Gebrezgiaher was served with a copy of the
brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review.
Gebrezgiaher did not file a supplemental brief.

No. 81052-9-I/2
2
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: (1) whether the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied Grebrezgiaher’s request for a new trial attorney; (2)
whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted two pretrial
continuances over Gebrezgiaher’s objection; (3) whether the prosecutor
committed misconduct in closing argument by misstating the law; and (4) whether
the trial court erred by questioning the victim and his mother at the sentencing
hearing about injuries that were not causally connected to the offense.
The issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw
is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT: