Title: KATHERINE WILSON MCDOWELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING
Citation: 2012 WY 108, 281 P.3d 751
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 2012

KATHERINE WILSON MCDOWELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING Annotate this Case KATHERINE WILSON MCDOWELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING 2012 WY 108 Case Number: S-12-0079 Decided: 08/08/2012 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 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