Title: MICHAEL SCOTT CARROLL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MICHAEL SCOTT CARROLL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 117Case Number: S-11-0074Decided: 08/10/2011NOTICE: This 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 correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
April 
Term, A.D. 2011

 
 
MICHAEL 
SCOTT CARROLL,Appellant (Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee (Plaintiff).

 
 

 
 

[¶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.  In 
2009, Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the third 
degree.   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
6-2-316(a)(i).  The district court 
imposed a sentence of two to three years, which was suspended in favor of seven 
years of supervised probation.  In 
2010, the district court revoked Appellant's probation and imposed the 
underlying sentence.  The "Order 
Revoking Probation and Judgment and Sentence" was entered on December 28, 
2010.  Appellant filed this appeal 
to challenge that order.  On May 16, 
2011, 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 appellate counsel, this Court, on June 7, 2011, entered its "Order 
Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw."  That Order notified Appellant that the 
district court's December 28, 2010, "Order Revoking Probation and Judgment and 
Sentence" would be affirmed unless, on or before July 25, 2011, Appellant filed 
a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly 
frivolous.  Taking note that 
Appellant, Michael Scott Carroll, has not filed a brief or other pleading within 
the time allotted, the Court finds that the district court's "Order Revoking 
Probation and Judgment and Sentence" should be affirmed.  It is, therefore, 

 
 

[¶2]      ORDERED 
that the 
district court's December 28, 2010, "Order Revoking Probation and Judgment and 
Sentence" be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

 
 

[¶3]      DATED this 10th day of 
August, 2011.

                                                

 
 

                                                
                        
BY THE 
COURT:

                                                            
   

                                                                        
/s/

 
 
            
                                                            
MARILYN S. KITE