State Of Washington, V. Grin Arkanit

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: October 23, 2023
• Docket: 84349-4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 84349-4-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION GRIN ARKANIT,

Appellant.

PER CURIAM. Grin Arkanit appeals a trial court order denying his motion

for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to RCW 10.73.170. His 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.

Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744) (alterations in

original).

This procedure has been followed. Arkanit’s counsel on appeal filed a

brief with the motion to withdraw. Arkanit was served with a copy of the brief, No. 84349-4-I/2

and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review.

Arkanit filed a statement of additional grounds. 1

The material 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: whether the trial court violated

Arkanit’s right to due process by denying his motion without a hearing, whether

the trial court erred by denying Arkanit’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing,

and whether the trial court erred by denying Arkanit’s motion for the appointment

of counsel. The court also considered the following issues raised by Arkanit:

whether the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for unlawful

possession of a firearm in the second degree, and whether the trial court erred

by not reading the jury instructions orally on the record.

The issues raised by counsel and by Arkanit are wholly frivolous. The

motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT:

1 Arkanit subsequently filed a motion for extension of time pursuant to RAP 18.8. The motion is denied.

-2-