State Of Washington, Respondent V. Dougnyl Akeang, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
DOUGNYLAKEANG,
Appellant.
No. 74949-8-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	January 9, 2017
i
Per Curiam. 	Dougnyl Akeang 	appeals from 	the judgment and 	sentence
entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of felony harassment. 	Akeang'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, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S.
Ct. 1396 (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. 	Akeang's counsel on appeal filed a brief
with the motion 	to withdraw. 	Akeang 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. 74949-8-1/2
reviewed the entire record. 	The court specifically considered the following potential
issues raised by counsel:
1: Did the superior court abuse its discretion in revoking Akeang's suspended
sentence?
2. 	Did the proceedings below violate Akeang's right to due process?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. 	Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court: