Redsky Javier Antelope v. The State of Wyoming

2025 WY 32, 565 P.3d 701
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 26, 2025
DocketS-24-0293
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 WY 32 (Redsky Javier Antelope 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
Redsky Javier Antelope v. The State of Wyoming, 2025 WY 32, 565 P.3d 701 (Wyo. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2025 WY 32

October Term, A.D. 2024

March 26, 2025

REDSKY JAVIER ANTELOPE,

Appellant (Defendant),

v. S-24-0293

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 strangulation of a household member. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-509(a)(i). For this count, the district court imposed a 4 to 8 year sentence of incarceration. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s August 27, 2024, Sentence.

[¶2] On January 28, 2025, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 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 Appellant was permitted to file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like 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. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. [¶3] Now, following a careful review of the Anders brief submitted by appellate counsel, and the record, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s Sentence should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

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

[¶5] ORDERED that the Campbell County District Court’s August 27, 2024, Sentence be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 26th day of March, 2025.

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)
2025 WY 32, 565 P.3d 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redsky-javier-antelope-v-the-state-of-wyoming-wyo-2025.