State v. Stump, 374 P.3d 89

Stump was convicted of possession of heroin after a bench trial and appealed; the trial court appointed counsel for the appeal at public expense.
Appellate counsel, after reviewing the record, filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding the appeal was wholly frivolous; Stump did not file additional grounds.
A Court of Appeals commissioner granted counsel’s motion, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the conviction; the State then sought appellate costs under RAP 14.2.
The commissioner awarded costs to the State as the substantially prevailing party; a Court of Appeals panel denied reconsideration of that cost award.
The Washington Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether RAP 14.2 permits imposing appellate costs against an indigent defendant when counsel files an Anders brief and withdraws.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stump)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether RAP 14.2’s "substantially prevails" rule permits awarding appellate costs when appointed counsel files an Anders brief and moves to withdraw	Stump: No costs — the Anders withdrawal is nonadversarial, no party substantially prevailed (or Stump prevailed because counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted)	State: Yes costs — the State prevailed because the conviction was affirmed on review and RAP 14.2 mandates awards by a commissioner to the substantially prevailing party	Court: RAP 14.2 does not apply to Anders withdrawals; awarding costs under RAP 14.2 in this context is improper; cost award reversed
Whether an Anders brief creates an adversarial proceeding for purposes of awarding costs	Stump: Anders is not an advocate’s brief; procedure is a nonadversarial device, so it is unfair to treat the outcome as a normal victory for the State	State: Anders counsel’s position effectively abandons the appeal; some financial risk may accompany pursuing meritless appeals	Court: Anders proceedings are not adversarial; the brief is a device to permit court review, so treating the result as a conventional prevailing-party affirmance is unjust

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure allowing appointed counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is wholly frivolous and to file a brief identifying any arguable issues)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (explains Anders brief is not an advocate’s brief and serves to permit nonadversarial resolution when appeals are frivolous)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (upholds procedures requiring counsel to explain why possible issues lack merit; reiterates Anders is not a substitute for an advocate’s brief)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (holds indigent defendants are entitled to appointed counsel on first appeal but counsel need not raise frivolous claims)
State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184 (1970) (Washington follows the Anders procedure rather than requiring counsel to continue with potentially frivolous appellate advocacy)