State Of Washington, V. Frank W. Barber

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: July 10, 2023
• Docket: 84707-4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 84707-4-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION FRANK BARBER,

Appellant.

PER CURIAM. Frank Barber appeals the judgment and sentence imposed

upon his conviction for attempted robbery in the first degree. His court-appointed

attorney filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good

faith argument on review. See State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188

(1970); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

Because this court has identified a nonfrivolous issue: namely, whether

Barber is entitled to relief from the victim penalty assessment and/or the DNA

collection fee imposed in his judgment and sentence, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw and appoint new counsel to represent Barber. 1 See State v. Nichols,

136 Wn.2d 859, 968 P.2d 411 (1998) (once an appellate court identifies a

nonfrivolous issue in an Anders case, before deciding the merits, the court must

appoint counsel and direct counsel to prepare an advocate’s brief).

1 It appears that counsel’s motion to withdraw was filed prior to recent legislative amendments eliminating the DNA collection fee and prohibiting the imposition of victim penalty assessments on indigent defendants, effective July 1, 2023. See LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449. No. 84707-4-I/2

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Washington Appellate Project is appointed to represent the

appellant; and it is further

ORDERED that the clerk of this court shall set a briefing schedule and a

date for consideration of this claim on the merits.

FOR THE COURT: