Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barnes v. State

November 24, 2010

STEPHEN BERNARD BARNES, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn S. Kite Chief Justice

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon Appellant's pro se "Motion of Response," filed herein November 4, 2010. This is Appellant's appeal from an "Order of Dismissal," wherein the district court dismissed, without prejudice, a burglary charge. On September 7, 2010, 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 briefs" submitted by counsel, this Court entered, on September 28, 2010, 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 this Court's "Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw," Appellant filed his "Motion of Response." After a careful review of that motion, this Court finds that Appellant has not established that the captioned appeal is not frivolous. This 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,

[¶2] ORDERED that any requests for relief contained in the "Motion of Response," be, and hereby are, denied; and it is further

[¶3] ORDERED that the District Court's "Order of Dismissal" and its "Order Denying Objections and Motions" be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.

[¶4] DATED this 24rd day of November, 2010.

20101124

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.