Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                        )
                                            )       No. 67006-9-I
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )
           v.                               )       DIVISION ONE
                                            )
EDMOND CUMMINGS, AKA                        )       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BILLY JO CUMMINGS,                          )
                                            )
                      Appellant.            )       FILED:   June 4, 2012

       PER CURIAM.  Edmond Cummings appeals from the judgment and sentence 

entered after a jury found him guilty of delivery of an uncontrolled substance in lieu 

of a controlled substance.  RCW 69.50.4012.  Cummings' 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.

State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).

       This procedure has been followed.  Cummings' counsel on appeal filed a brief  

No. 67006-9-I/2

with the motion to withdraw.  Cummings was served with a copy of the brief and 

informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review.  Cummings 

has filed a statement of additional grounds for review.

       The 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:

           1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Cummings' conviction?

           2. Whether Cummings was denied his right to effective assistance of 
              counsel?

       The court also considered the following issues raised by Cummings in his 

statement of additional grounds on review:

           1. Whether the trial court erred in calculating Cummings' offender score 
              and in determining the standard range sentence?

           2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting Cummings' statements?

           3. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury?

           4. Whether Cummings was denied his right to effective assistance of 
              counsel.
       Upon independent review, the court discovered a scrivener's error in section 

2.4 of the judgment and sentence, which lists the maximum term of Cummings'

sentence as "20 years and/or $50,000." As the State correctly concedes, the 

maximum term should be 10 years and/or a $10,000 fine.  See RCW 69.50.408(1); 

                                              2 

No. 67006-9-I/3

9A.20.021(1)(c).

       Since in all other respects, the potential issues in this case are frivolous, 

counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  The trial court

is directed to enter an order within sixty days of the filing of this opinion amending 

the judgment and sentence to reflect the correct maximum term.

                          For the court:

                                              3