Title: City of Seattle v. Muldrew
Citation: 420 P.2d 702, 69 Wash. 2d 877
Docket Number: 38938, 38939
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 1966

69 Wn.2d 877 (1966) 420 P.2d 702 THE CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, v. LOUELLA MULDREW, Appellant.[*] Nos. 38938, 38939. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. December 1, 1966. Lockett &amp; Johnson and William F. Lockett, for appellant. A.L. Newbould and J. Roger Nowell, for respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant was convicted in the Seattle Municipal Court of agreeing to commit an act of prostitution and of resisting arrest in violation of Seattle ordinances. On appeal to the King County Superior Court, the two causes were consolidated, and appellant was again convicted in a trial to the court. At the conclusion of the city's evidence, appellant moved for dismissal on the ground that the city had not established a prima facie case. The motion was denied, and appellant rested without presenting any evidence. On appeal to this court, appellant makes two assignments of error which in effect challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the two findings of guilty. [1] Initially we note that appellant has cited no authority in support of her assignments of error. Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search for authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent efforts, has found none. DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 372 P.2d 193 (1962). An assignment of error which is not supported by *878 cited authority will not be considered unless it appears on its face that the assignment is well taken. Jones v. National Bank of Commerce, 66 Wn.2d 341, 402 P.2d 673 (1965). Appellant's assignments presently before us do not appear to meet that standard. [2] In any event, appellant's assignments of error fail in another regard, which we determine to be dispositive of the instant appeal. Appellant, although challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, has not assigned error to any of the trial court's findings of fact. When no error is assigned respecting the trial court's findings of fact, they become the established facts of the case. Seattle v. Reel, ante p. 227, 418 P.2d 237 (1966); State v. Mercy, 55 Wn.2d 530, 348 P.2d 978 (1960). In the present case the trial court made the following findings of fact: The findings of fact fully support the trial court's determination as to the guilt of the defendant. The appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered. [*] Reported in 420 P.2d 702.