Title: KATHERINE WILSON MCDOWELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

KATHERINE WILSON MCDOWELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2012 WY 108Case Number: S-12-0079Decided: 08/08/2012This 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
 
KATHERINE 
WILSON-MCDOWELL,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).
 
Order Affirming Sentence of the District 
Court
 
[¶1]      This 
matter came 
before the Court upon Appellant’s letter, which was filed herein July 25, 
2012.   Appellant pled “no 
contest” to, and was convicted of, one count of child abuse.  On May 21, 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 briefs” submitted by 
counsel, this Court, on June 12, 2012, entered its “Order Granting Permission 
for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.”  That Order provided that the District 
Court’s February 27, 2012 “Sentence” would be affirmed unless, on or before July 
30, 2012, appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned 
appeal is not wholly frivolous.  In 
response to this Court's "Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel 
to Withdraw," Appellant filed the above-referenced letter.  After a careful review of that letter, 
this Court finds that Appellant has not established that the captioned appeal is 
less than frivolous.  Appellant’s 
letter in no way resembles an appellate brief and, further, is devoid of cogent 
argument and citation to pertinent authority.  To the extent this Court can decipher 
any argument, this Court notes that Appellant’s complaints were addressed in the 
Anders brief.  Therefore, the Court finds that the 
District Court's “Sentence” should be affirmed.  It is, therefore, 
 
[¶2]      ORDERED 
that the 
District Court’s February 27, 2012 “Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, 
affirmed.
 
[¶3]      DATED this 8th day of August, 2012.
 
                                                                        
BY THE 
COURT:
                                                            
   
                                                                        
/s/
            
                                                            
MARILYN S. KITE
                                                                        
Chief Justice