Marie Christine Franks v. The State of Wyoming

2021 WY 113, 496 P.3d 378
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 13, 2021
DocketS-21-0157
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 WY 113 (Marie Christine Franks v. The State of Wyoming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marie Christine Franks v. The State of Wyoming, 2021 WY 113, 496 P.3d 378 (Wyo. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2021 WY 113

October Term, A.D. 2021

October 13, 2021

MARIE CHRISTINE FRANKS,

Appellant (Defendant),

v. S-21-0157

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Plaintiff).

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE [¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in the time allotted. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of endangering a child. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-403(a)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 365 days, suspended in favor of one year of unsupervised probation. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s March 31, 2021 Order After Hearing on Change of Plea and Judgment and Sentence.

[¶2] On August 10, 2021, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-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). This Court subsequently entered an Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on or before September 30, 2021, Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief which specifies the issues for the 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. This Court notes that Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. [¶3] Now, following 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 Judgment and Sentence should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel for Appellant Marie Christine Franks, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the Sheridan County District Court’s March 31, 2021 Order After Hearing on Change of Plea and Judgment and Sentence be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 13th day of October, 2021.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX Chief Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 WY 113, 496 P.3d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marie-christine-franks-v-the-state-of-wyoming-wyo-2021.