State Of Washington, Respondent V. Edward Cobb, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
EDWARD COBB,
Appellant.
No. 86606-1-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — Edward Cobb appeals from an order denying his motion for
postconviction 	DNA1 testing. 	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),
“Th[e] request [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. 	Cobb’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Cobb was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his
right to file a statement of additional grounds for review (SAGR).
The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel’s brief in support of the
1 Deoxyribonucleic acid.

No. 86606-1-I/2
-2-
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
potential issues raised by counsel, i.e., whether the trial court deprived Cobb of due
process when it decided his motion for postconviction DNA testing without a hearing
and whether the trial court erred by denying Cobb’s motion.
The potential issues are wholly frivolous, and our independent analysis of the
record has revealed no other potentially reversible error.2 Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT:
2 Cobb has filed a SAGR in which he challenges the underlying convictions and the judgment and
sentence (J&S) entered on those convictions. But Cobb’s convictions and the J&S are not properly
before us given that this appeal is from a postconviction motion for DNA testing. See RAP 10.10(a)
(defendant may file a SAGR “to identify and discuss those matters related to the decision under review”
(emphasis added)). Accordingly, we do not reach the issues that Cobb raises in his SAGR.