State Of Washington, Respondent V. Lawrence Dunbar Smalley, Appellant

N THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 74468-2-I
Respondent,
v. 	DIVISION ONE
LAWRENCE DUNBAR SMALLEY, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant 	FILED April 24, 2017
LEACH, J — Lawrence Smalley appeals his conviction for second degree
assault—domestic violence He argues that we must remand this case for the
trial court to enter written CrR 3.5 findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Because the trial court belatedly entered the findings and conclusions and
Smalley has not alleged any prejudice from their delayed entry, he fails to
demonstrate grounds for relief.1
Smalley also claims as an additional ground for relief that the trial court
violated his speedy trial rights, citing Vermont v. Brillon.2 Apart from naming that
case, Smalley makes no argument for relief. “[T]he appellate court will not
consider a defendant’s statement of additional grounds for review if it does not
inform the court of the nature and occurrence of alleged errors.”3 And except in
State v. Cannon, 130 Wn.2d 313, 329, 922 P.2d 1293 (1996) (“Although
the practice of submitting late findings and conclusions is disfavored, they may
be ‘submitted and entered even while an appeal is pending’ if the defendant is
not prejudiced by the belated entry of findings.” (quoting State v. McGary, 37 Wn.
App. 856, 861, 683 P.2d 1125 (1984))); State v. Gaddy, 114 Wn. App. 702, 705,
60 P.3d 116 (2002), aff’d, 152 Wn.2d 64, 93 P.3d 872 (2004).
2556 U.S. 81, 129 S. Ct. 1283, 173 L. Ed. 2d 231 (2009).
~ RAP 10.10(c).

No. 74468-2-I I 2
certain cases not applicable here, “the appellate court is not obligated to search
the record in support of claims made in a defendant’s statement of additional
grounds for review.”4 We therefore decline to address the merits of Smalley’s
additional ground.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
~AJ~An~ ~
RAP 10.10(c).
-2-