State Of Washington, Respondent V. James Pierpoint Bulah, Appellant

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
JAMES PIERPOINT BULAH, III,
Appellant.
UU'JM Uij;;,; £*'.•,% v Am
.TAT
20IUUL-7 	AH 11 *• 33
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 68353-5-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	JUL 	7 2014
PER CURIAM. 	James Bulah appeals a first degree burglary, felony violation of a
court order, and second degree assault, all with a domestic violence designation in King
County Superior Court No. 11-1-06508-8 SEA. The State later amended the
information to residential burglary and six counts of felony violation of a court order, five
of which were based on contacts occurring while Bulah was in jail on June 12, 2011.
Bulah'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.
Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).

No. 68353-5-1/2
This procedure has been followed. 	Bulah's counsel on appeal filed a brief with
the motion to withdraw. 	Bulah 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
reviewed the entire record. 	The court specifically considered the following potential
issues raised by counsel:
1. 	Did Bulah receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial?
2. 	Is violation of a no contact order properly considered a predicate offense for
residential burglary?
3. 	Did the trial court violate Bulah's right to confrontation by admitting a certified
copy of the victim's driver's license into evidence?
Appellant did not file a pro se brief. 	The potential issues are wholly frivolous.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court: