Title: DENNIS J. GROSS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING
Citation: 2012 WY 93, 278 P.3d 1165
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 2012

DENNIS J. GROSS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING Annotate this Case DENNIS J. GROSS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING 2012 WY 93 Case Number: S-11-0296 Decided: 06/27/2012 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 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