Steven Elliot Richardson v. The State of Wyoming
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 16 October Term, A.D. 2014 February 4, 2015 STEVEN ELLIOT RICHARDSON, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-14-0237 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S “ORDER REVOKING PROBATION AND IMPOSING SENTENCE” [¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s August 14, 2014, “Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Sentence.” In that order, the district court revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed a sentence of four to six years on Appellant’s conviction for felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. On November 7, 2014, 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 brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court, on December 2, 2014, entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court-Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order notified Appellant that the district court’s “Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Sentence” would be affirmed unless, on or before January 20, 2015, Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not frivolous. Now, taking note that Appellant, Steven Elliot Richardson, has not filed a brief or other pleading within the time allotted, the Court finds that the district court’s “Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Sentence” should be affirmed. It is, therefore, [¶2] ORDERED that the district court’s August 14, 2014, “Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. [¶3] DATED this 4th day of February, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. JAMES BURKE Chief Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
