State v. Koehler

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Koehler

436 P.2d 773, 73 Wash. 2d 145, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 608

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 2, 1968

DocketNo. 39379

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 436 P.2d 773 (State v. Koehler) 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. Koehler, 436 P.2d 773, 73 Wash. 2d 145, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 608 (Wash. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence for burglary in the second degree. 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 January 19, 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 January 3, 1968, appellant’s counsel filed a brief reviewing the case and setting forth the only two assign[146]*146ments of error which might arguably support an appeal, and at the same time filed a motion to withdraw 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 appears from the record that copies of appellant’s brief and his counsel’s motion for withdrawal were mailed to appellant on December 29, 1967.

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 burglary in the second degree. 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 January 19, 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 January 3, 1968, appellant’s counsel filed a brief reviewing the case and setting forth the only two assign[146]*146ments of error which might arguably support an appeal, and at the same time filed a motion to withdraw 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 appears from the record that copies of appellant’s brief and his counsel’s motion for withdrawal were mailed to appellant on December 29, 1967.

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)

436 P.2d 773, 73 Wash. 2d 145, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-koehler-wash-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack