### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

201 6 WY 95

April Term, A.D. 201 6

September 28, 2016

RONALD DALE ANDERSON,

Appellant (Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Plaintiff). S

- 16

- 0156



### O RDER 

### A FFIRMING THE 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### ’ S 

### J UDGMENT AND 

### S ENTENCE

[¶ 1 ] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification

that A ppellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guil ty plea s to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree

. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6

- 2

- 3 16 (a). The district court imposed sentence s o f 10 to 1 5 years on each count, with the sentences ordered to be served concurrently

. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s February

9

, 201 6 , “ Judgment Upon Plea of Guilty ” and its May 16 , 2016, “Sentenc e .”

[¶ 2] On A u gust 2 , 201 6 , Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel e

- filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The next day , this Court entered an “Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief.” This Court ordered that, on

or before September 16 , 201 6 , Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues h e would like this Court to consider in this appeal .” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expir ed, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to wi thdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” This Court notes that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted.[¶ 3] Now, f ollowing a careful review of the record and the “ Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s February 9, 201 6 , “ Judgment Upon Plea of Guilty ” and its May 16, 2016, “Sentence” should be affirmed

. In doing so, t his Court finds that counsel has not provided sufficient indicia that counsel thoroughly searched the record and the

law in service of t h e client so that this Court might confidently consider only those objections mentioned in the Anders b rief. United States v. Marvin

, 211 F.3d 778, 781 (3 rd
Cir. 2000). This Court notes that, at page 5 of the Anders brief, appellate counsel

indicates that s he “was unable to identify any error which s he could, in good

- faith, assert as prejudicial given the particular facts in this case.” However, counsel does not identify any potential errors or issues, other than those her client has complained of . Simply dismissing any potential error as non

- prejudicial does not satisfy counsel’s obligation to “refer[] to anything in the record that m ight arguably support the appeal.” Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Nevertheless, this Court finds this case is not so complicated as to require further briefing.

[¶ 4] Also , this Court finds it shoul d order the correction of clerical error s . The “Amended Felony Information,” “Judgment Upon Plea of Guilty,” and the “Sentence” a ll incorrectly state that Appellant pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree pursuant to W yo

. S tat

. Ann. § 6

- 2

- 316(a)(iv). However, the count related to victim BC was actually brought pursuant to W yo

. S tat

. Ann. § 6

- 2

- 316(a)(i), as re flected in the transcript from the change of plea hearing. (R ecord on Appeal, p. 1 23 at pgs. 22

- 30) This Court f

inds that, pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 36, the se error s should be corrected

. It is, therefore,

[¶ 5 ] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court

- appointed counsel

for A ppellant, Ronald Dale Anderson , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of

r ecord for A ppellant; and it is further

[¶ 6 ] ORDERED that the district court’s February 9, 2016, “Judgment Upon Plea of Guilty” and its May 16, 2016, “Sentence” be, and the same hereby are, affirmed ; and it is

further

[¶ 7 ] ORDERED that, with respect to th e Judicial Systems Automation fee and the Indigent Civil Legal Services fee, the written “Sentence” shall control over the district court’s oral pronouncement that those fees should be imposed on each count. This Court recently ruled that those fees are t o be imposed on a per case (not per count) bas i s

. Hawes

v. State , 2016 WY 30, ¶¶ 1 5

- 1 6 , 368 P.3d 879, 884

- 85 (Wyo. 2016); and it is further

[¶ 8] ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the district court for correction of the

cler ical errors noted in para graph four of this order.[¶ 9 ] DATED this 2 8 th day of September , 201 6

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

E. J A MES BUR KE

Chief Justice