State v. Jones

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Jones

447 P.2d 706, 75 Wash. 2d 951, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 589

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1968

DocketNo. 40473

StatusPublished

This text of 447 P.2d 706 (State v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jones, 447 P.2d 706, 75 Wash. 2d 951, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 589 (Wash. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence for armed robbery. The case is now before the court on appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and respondent’s motion to dismiss the cause on the ground, among others, that the appeal is frivolous. Argument on these motions was heard on October 29,1968.

After the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, the trial court pursuant to ROA 46 (c) (2) (i) entered an order finding the appellant to be an indigent, authorizing the appeal to be perfected at public expense and appointing counsel to represent the appellant. A transcript and statement of facts have been prepared at public expense and filed in this court.

On August 30, 1968, appellant’s counsel filed a brief reviewing the case and setting forth the only two assignments of error which might arguably support an appeal, and at the same time filed a motion to [952]*952withdraw in accordance with the rule announced in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 Sup. Ct. 1396 (1967), deeming the appeal to be without merit: It áppears from the record that copies of appellant’s brief and his counsel’s motion for withdrawal were mailed to appellant on August 29,1968.

A full examination of the proceeding discloses that the assignments of error cannot be supported by the record, and the court finds the appeal patently frivolous. The motion of appellant’s counsel to withdraw, and of respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of frivolity are, therefore, granted.

It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence for armed robbery. The case is now before the court on appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and respondent’s motion to dismiss the cause on the ground, among others, that the appeal is frivolous. Argument on these motions was heard on October 29,1968.

After the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, the trial court pursuant to ROA 46 (c) (2) (i) entered an order finding the appellant to be an indigent, authorizing the appeal to be perfected at public expense and appointing counsel to represent the appellant. A transcript and statement of facts have been prepared at public expense and filed in this court.

On August 30, 1968, appellant’s counsel filed a brief reviewing the case and setting forth the only two assignments of error which might arguably support an appeal, and at the same time filed a motion to [952]*952withdraw in accordance with the rule announced in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 Sup. Ct. 1396 (1967), deeming the appeal to be without merit: It áppears from the record that copies of appellant’s brief and his counsel’s motion for withdrawal were mailed to appellant on August 29,1968.

A full examination of the proceeding discloses that the assignments of error cannot be supported by the record, and the court finds the appeal patently frivolous. The motion of appellant’s counsel to withdraw, and of respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of frivolity are, therefore, granted.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 P.2d 706, 75 Wash. 2d 951, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-wash-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack