Case Title: DENNIS J. GROSS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-11-0296

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
DENNIS J. GROSS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2012 WY 93Case Number: S-11-0296Decided: 06/27/2012This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.  
April 
Term, A.D. 2012
 
DENNIS 
JAY GROSS,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).
 
Order Affirming the Judgment and Sentence 
of the District Court
 
[¶1]      This 
matter came 
before the Court upon its own motion following notification that appellant has 
not filed a pro se brief within the 
time allotted by this Court.  
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a “no contest” plea to 
driving under the influence of alcohol, a fourth offense felony under Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 31-5-233(e).  This is 
Appellant’s direct appeal from the resulting conviction.  On March 27, 2012, Appellant’s 
court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” 
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).  Following a careful review of the record 
and the “Anders brief” submitted by 
counsel, this Court, on April 24, 2012, entered its “Order Granting Permission 
for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.”  
That Order notified Appellant that the District Court’s October 7, 2011 
“Judgment and Sentence” would be affirmed unless, on or before June 11, 2012, 
Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is 
not wholly frivolous.  Taking note 
that Appellant, Dennis Jay Gross, has not filed a brief or other pleading within 
the time allotted, the Court finds that the district court’s “Judgment and 
Sentence” should be affirmed.  It 
is, therefore, 
 
[¶2]      ORDERED 
that the 
District Court’s October 7, 2011, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same 
hereby is, affirmed.
 
[¶3]      DATED this 27th day of June, 2012.
                                                

 
       BY THE 
COURT:
                                                            
      
                 
/s/
 
        MARILYN 
S. KITE
                                                                        
Chief Justice