State Of Washington, Respondent V. Larry Joe Berniard, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 70357-9-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION LARRY JOE BERNIARD, Appellant. FILED: May 27, 2014 Per Curiam. Larry Berniard appeals from his conviction for three counts of unlawful delivery of cocaine. Berniard'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, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (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. State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744). This procedure has been followed. Berniard's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Berniard was served with a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He did not file a statement of additional grounds. No. 70357-9-1/2 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. Whether sufficient evidence supported Berniard's convictions for delivery of cocaine? 2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to give Berniard's proposed reasonable doubt instruction? The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed. For the Court: ^.ckuR, ' S too 3=» ni~' r^cr < ~n ' ¢ ~> ¢ ZS. rr: J> CO ~, U'i XT o co - ¢- ¢"- ¢
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.
