State Of Washington, Respondent V. Brett White, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 69448-1-1 Respondent, o DIVISION ONE S 3i I rn ' 1 m o c v. BRETT DOMINIC WHITE, UNPUBLISHED OPINION £ 3^r IP rr*'- Appellant. FILED: December 30, 2013 """ CO CO CO Per Curiam. Brett White challenges his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, assault in the fourth degree, and interference with domestic violence reporting in King County No. 12-1-00658-6 KNT. 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, 78Wn.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 supportthe 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. White was informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. White did not file a supplemental brief nor statement of additional grounds for review. The court specifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel: Did the information provide constitutionally sufficient notice of the charges? ¢,1'-' No. 69448-1-1/2 Was the guilty plea involuntary? Did the trial court err in imposing supervision by the Department of Corrections as a condition of White's suspended sentence? The issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed. For the court: V ¬<J^e,<, >
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.
