State Of Washington, Respondent V. Andrew Lee Branch, Jr., Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
ANDREW BRANCH, JR.,
Appellant.
No. 70436-2-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: September 2, 2014
Gr, 	</> O
rn J"0
-X3
""* _
	\
-:£'-
,A-"*
cf> r
—*
vO 	C'.'}
** 	—t
ro 	o
Per Curiam. 	Andrew Branch Jr. appeals from the judgment and sentence
entered 	following 	his guilty 	plea to two counts 	of second degree 	identity theft.
Branch'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, 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.
State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. 	Branch's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion to withdraw. 	Branch 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.
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

No. 70436-2-1 / 2
reviewed the entire record. 	The court specifically considered the following potential
issues raised by counsel:
1. 	Does 	Branch's 	guilty 	plea 	meet 	constitutional 	and 	court 	rule
requirements for a valid guilty plea?
2. Was defense counsel 	ineffective for failing 	to argue that some of
Branch's prior convictions constituted the same criminal conduct?
3. Did the trial court err in failing to rule on Branch's motion for a new trial
and arrest of judgment?
4. 	Is the record insufficient for this court to perform an independent
review under Anders v. California?
The court also raised and considered the following potential issue:
1. Was Branch's plea involuntary due to the alleged ineffective assistance
of defense counsel in failing to bring a motion to suppress?
The potential issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous, and the potential
issue raised by the court involves matters outside the record. 	Counsel's motion to
withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
^\V* c/Uq >y 	y 	~J