|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
66947-8 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Alex Acevedo, Appellant |
| File Date: |
06/04/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from King County Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 10-8-02188-6 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 03/30/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Helen L Halpert |
JUDGES
------
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | 1908 E Madison St |
| | Seattle, WA, 98122 |
|
| | Dana M Nelson |
| | Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC |
| | 1908 E Madison St |
| | Seattle, WA, 98122-2842 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Benjamin Carr |
| | King County Prosecuting Atty |
| | W554 King County Courthouse |
| | 516 Third Avenue |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104-2362 |
|
| | Prosecuting Atty King County |
| | King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor |
| | W554 King County Courthouse |
| | 516 Third Avenue |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104 |
|
| | Peter P. Desanto |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | 516 3rd Ave Ste W554 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104-2362 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 66947-8-I
Respondent, )
) DIVISION ONE
v. )
)
A.A., ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
B.D. 6/23/94, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: June 4, 2012
Per Curiam. A.A. appeals from an order of disposition entered in juvenile court
finding him guilty of second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. RCW
9.41.040(2)(a)(iii). A.A.'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 insofar as possible. A.A.'s counsel on appeal
filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. However, as explained in appellate counsel's
declaration filed in this court, despite numerous efforts, counsel has been unable to
No. 66947-8-I/2
locate A.A. since being appointed to represent him on appeal. Therefore, A.A. has not
been served with a copy of counsel's brief or informed of the right to file a statement of
additional grounds for review. Accordingly, A.A. has not filed a statement of additional
grounds.
Nevertheless, 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 juvenile court erred in ruling that the firearm was properly
seized?
2. Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting A.A.'s statements to police
officers?
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that A.A. was under the
age of 18?
The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is
granted and the appeal is dismissed.
For the court:
2
|