State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Allen Myers, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL ALLEN MYERS,
Appellant.
No. 87342-3-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — Michael Myers appeals the judgement and sentence entered on
his jury conviction of rape of a child in the first degree and child molestation in the first
degree. 	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 (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).
This procedure has been followed. 	Myers’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Myers was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his
right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. 	Myers has not filed a
statement of additional grounds.

No. 87342-3-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. 	Did the trial court err by admitting Myers’s statements to police, which were
involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda due to his mental state?
2. 	Did the trial court err by admitting E.R.C.’s child hearsay statements?
3. 	Was E.R.C. competent to testify at trial?
4. 	Did Myers receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney
failed to challenge E.R.C.’s competency?
5. 	Did the trial court impermissibly comment on the evidence and violate Myers’s
due process rights by giving a “no corroboration” instruction to the jury?
6. 	Does the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (RCW 9.94A.5709) violate
the Washington and United States Constitutions by requiring mandatory life
without parole?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous, and our independent analysis of the
record has revealed no other potentially reversible error. 	Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT: