Summary 2010 WY 153
Summary of Order November 24, 2010
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name: Barnes v. State
Citation: 2010 WY 153
Docket Number: S-10-0079
URL: http://tinyurl.com/375beah
Date of Order: November 24, 2010
ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter came before the Court upon Appellant’s pro se “Motion of Response. This is Appellant’s appeal from an “Order of Dismissal,” wherein the district court dismissed, without prejudice, a burglary charge. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Following a careful review of the record and the “Anders briefs” submitted by counsel, this Court entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order provided that the District Court’s “Order of Dismissal” and its “Order Denying Objections and Motions” would be affirmed unless, on or before November 12, 2010, the Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. In response to the Court’s “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw,” Appellant filed his “Motion of Response.” After a careful review of that motion, the Court finds that Appellant has not established that the captioned appeal is not frivolous. The Court finds the motion devoid of cogent argument and citation to pertinent authority. Therefore, the Court finds that the District Court’s “Order of Dismissal” and its “Order Denying Objections and Motions” should be affirmed. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that any requests for relief contained in the “Motion of Response,” be, and hereby are, denied; and it is further ORDERED that the District Court’s “Order of Dismissal” and its “Order Denying Objections and Motions” be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.
BY THE COURT
