State Of Washington v. Dougnyl Akeang

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJanuary 9, 2017
Docket74949-8
StatusUnpublished

This text of State Of Washington v. Dougnyl Akeang (State Of Washington v. Dougnyl Akeang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Of Washington v. Dougnyl Akeang, (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 74949-8-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE i v.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION DOUGNYLAKEANG,

Appellant. FILED: January 9, 2017

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:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Theobald
470 P.2d 188 (Washington Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State Of Washington v. Dougnyl Akeang, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-washington-v-dougnyl-akeang-washctapp-2017.