DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: |
67006-9 |
Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Resp. vs. Edmond Cummings, A/k/a Billy Jo Cummings, App. |
File Date: |
06/04/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from King County Superior Court |
Docket No: | 10-1-03536-9 |
Judgment or order under review |
Date filed: | 03/14/2011 |
Judge signing: | Honorable Susan Craighead |
JUDGES
------
Authored by | Mary Kay Becker |
Concurring: | Michael S. Spearman |
| Ann Schindler |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC |
| Attorney at Law |
| 1908 E Madison St |
| Seattle, WA, 98122 |
|
| Christopher Gibson |
| Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC |
| 1908 E Madison St |
| Seattle, WA, 98122-2842 |
|
| Cummings A/K (Appearing Pro Se) |
| Doc #630033 |
| Washington State Penitentiary |
| 1313 N. 13th Ave. |
| Walla Walla, WA, 99326 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| Prosecuting Atty King County |
| King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor |
| W554 King County Courthouse |
| 516 Third Avenue |
| Seattle, WA, 98104 |
|
| Randi J Austell |
| Attorney at Law |
| King Co Pros Attorney |
| 516 3rd Ave Ste 5th |
| Seattle, WA, 98104-2385 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 67006-9-I
Respondent, )
)
v. ) DIVISION ONE
)
EDMOND CUMMINGS, AKA ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BILLY JO CUMMINGS, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: June 4, 2012
PER CURIAM. Edmond Cummings appeals from the judgment and sentence
entered after a jury found him guilty of delivery of an uncontrolled substance in lieu
of a controlled substance. RCW 69.50.4012. Cummings' 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. Cummings' counsel on appeal filed a brief
No. 67006-9-I/2
with the motion to withdraw. Cummings was served with a copy of the brief and
informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Cummings
has filed a statement of additional grounds for review.
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. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Cummings' conviction?
2. Whether Cummings was denied his right to effective assistance of
counsel?
The court also considered the following issues raised by Cummings in his
statement of additional grounds on review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in calculating Cummings' offender score
and in determining the standard range sentence?
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting Cummings' statements?
3. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury?
4. Whether Cummings was denied his right to effective assistance of
counsel.
Upon independent review, the court discovered a scrivener's error in section
2.4 of the judgment and sentence, which lists the maximum term of Cummings'
sentence as "20 years and/or $50,000." As the State correctly concedes, the
maximum term should be 10 years and/or a $10,000 fine. See RCW 69.50.408(1);
2
No. 67006-9-I/3
9A.20.021(1)(c).
Since in all other respects, the potential issues in this case are frivolous,
counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed. The trial court
is directed to enter an order within sixty days of the filing of this opinion amending
the judgment and sentence to reflect the correct maximum term.
For the court:
3
|