State Of Washington, Resp/cross App V. Phillip Espinoza, App/cross Respondent (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 68728-0-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. PHILLIP GREGORY ESPINOZA, Appellant. UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: December 23, 2013 PER CURIAM. Phillip Espinoza challenges his conviction for domestic violence felony violation of a court order. 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. Espinoza's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Espinoza was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Espinoza filed 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 No. 68728-0-1/2 independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential issue raised by counsel: Did sufficient evidence support Espinoza's conviction? The court also considered the following issues raised by Espinoza in his statement of additional grounds on review: 1. Was trial counsel ineffective? 2. Was appellate counsel ineffective? Upon independent review, the court discovered an error in section 4.2 of the judgment and sentence, which imposes a term of community custody of 18 months. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 7. Domestic violence felony violation of a court order is a crime against persons, for which the term of community custody is 12 months. RCW 9.94A.701(3)(a). Since in all other respects, the potential issues in this case are frivolous, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.1 However, the matter is remanded to the sentencing court to amend the community custody term. For the court: jfo.vl co'5 t,^J '"i_ ,£*" _JO-=£ CO o UJ ciS r<-> i itf C3 1A commissioner of this court ruled that this panel should consider Espinoza's motion to withdraw the Anders briefand appoint new appellate counsel. Espinoza has not shown new counsel is warranted, and we deny Espinoza's motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
