Kenneth Eugene Christopher v. State

2016 WY 114, 384 P.3d 281, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 128, 2016 WL 6995556

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Decided: November 30, 2016
• Docket: S-16-0166
• Status: Published

Opinion

Order Affirming the District Court’s Judgment and Sentence

E. JAMES BURKE, Chief Justice

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon “Appellant's] Pro Se Brief,” which was filed herein November 17, 2016. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-314(a)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 30 to 40 years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s May 27, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence.”

[¶2] On August 17, 2016, 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). The next day, this Court entered an “Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief.” This Court ordered that Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like this Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” Appellant subsequently filed his pro se brief.

[¶3] Now, following a careful review of the record, “Appellantfs] Pro Se Brief,” and the “Anders brief’ submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should b¿ granted and the district court’s May 27, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed. This Court finds that Appellant’s pro se brief is not supported by pertinent authority.

[¶4] Finally, this Court finds it should order the district court to qnter an amended Judgment and Sentence, one that complies with W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(B). That rule requires that the written sentence “state whether multiple sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively.” Here, although the district court orally pronounced that Appellant’s sentences are to run concurrently, that pronouncement is not documented in the “Judgment and Sentence.” It is, therefore,

[¶5] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s -Office, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, Kenneth Eugene Christopher, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶6] ORDERED that the district court’s May 27, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed; and it is further

[¶7] ORDERED that, consistent with paragraph 4 of this order, this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an amended Judgment and Sentence.

[¶8] DATED this 30th day of November, 2016,

BY THE COURT:

/s/ E. JAMES BURKE

Chief Justice