State Of Washington, Respondent V. James Tainoino, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 73644-2-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION JAMES TUKI TAINOINO, FILED: October 17, 2016 Appellant. Per Curiam. James Tainoino appeals from his conviction following a plea of guilty to attempted identity theft in the second degree and his sentence within the standard range for a gross misdemeanor. Tainoino'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. Tainoino's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Tainoino was served with a copy of the brief and No. 73644-2-1/2 informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He did not file a statement of additional grounds. 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. Was there a sufficient factual basis to support Tainoino's plea? 3. Was the guilty plea involuntary? 4. Did the trial court err in imposing the sentence? 5. Did the sentencing court lack authority to impose legal financial obligations? The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed. For the court: cry O C~3 ••*-. —J UrfJ* Sr- . ' •••" Ul -: •-'•'• ro ~-; -.--'.
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.
