State Of Washington, Respondent V. Song Wang, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent.
v.
SONG WANG,
Appellant.
No. 85283-3-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — Song Wang appeals a trial court order denying his postconviction
motion for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 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), 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) (alterations in original).
This procedure has been followed. 	Wang’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Wang was served with a copy of the brief, and informed of his
right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. 	Wang filed a supplemental
brief.

No. 85283-3-I/2
-2-
The material 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 the trial court violated Wang’s
right to due process when it decided his motion for postconviction DNA testing without
obtaining a response from the State or holding a hearing and (2) whether the trial court
erred by denying Wang’s motion without reviewing the entire trial record. The court also
specifically considered the following issues raised by Wang: (1) whether the trial court
erred in denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing on its merits and (2) whether
a new trial is required because the trial court in Wang’s direct appeal failed to read the
jury instructions aloud.
The issues raised are wholly frivolous. 	The motion to withdraw is granted and
the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT: