State Of Washington, Respondent V. Heron S. Lindsay, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
HERON S. LINDSAY,
Appellant.
No. 74211-6-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	January 9, 2017
Per Curiam. 	Heron Lindsay appeals from his conviction following a plea of
assault in the third degree - 	domestic violence. 	Lindsay'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.
Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. 	Lindsay's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. 	Lindsay 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. 74211-6-1/2
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 	information 	provide constitutionally sufficient notice of the
charges?
2. 	Are the facts sufficient to support Lindsay's plea?
3. 	Was 	Lindsay's 	plea 	invalid 	because he 	was 	not assisted 	by an
interpreter?
4. 	Was the guilty plea involuntary?
5. 	Did the court lawfully impose a First Time Offender Waiver?
6. 	Did the court err in imposing legal financial obligations?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. 	Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
Sfl^c'i-^