Court Opinion

ID: 9898256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:29:28.595222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:42.215242
License: Public Domain

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

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                No. 84377-0-I
                    Respondent,
                                                DIVISION ONE
             v.
                                                UNPUBLISHED OPINION
TED JENSEN,

                    Appellant.

      PER CURIAM. Ted Jensen appeals a trial court order denying his “Motion for

Order to Show Cause re: Vacation of Judgment/Order” and his “Motion for Relief from

Judgment Revoking Deferred Sentence.”         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. Jensen’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with

the motion to withdraw. Jensen was served with a copy of the brief, and informed of his
No. 84377-0-I/2

right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Jensen filed a statement of

additional grounds.

      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 erred by denying his

motions to vacate his judgment and sentence on his conviction for theft in the second

degree and whether Jensen received ineffective assistance of appointed counsel. The

court also considered the following issues raised by Jensen: whether the record is

insufficient to permit review because it did not contain verbatim reports of proceedings

from 1984 and 1986, and whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in obtaining a

continuance of the hearing on his motions.

      The issues raised by counsel and by Jensen are wholly frivolous. The motion to

withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

                               FOR THE COURT:

                                         -2-