Carl Leroy Carlson v. The State of Wyoming

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2019 WY 87 April Term, A.D. 2019 August 28, 2019 CARL LEROY CARLSON, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-19-0101 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 filing of Appellant’s “Pro Se Brief.” Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional “no contest” pleas to (1) aggravated assault and battery and (2) interference with a peace officer, a misdemeanor. Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(iii); § 6-5-204(a). On the felony, the district court imposed a four to six-year sentence, suspended in favor of six years of probation. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s April 18, 2019, “Judgment and Sentence.” [¶ 2] On June 24, 2019, 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). This Court subsequently entered an order permitting Appellant to “file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the Court to consider in this appeal.” On August 8, 2019, Appellant filed his “Pro Se Brief.” [¶ 3] Now, following a careful review of the record, the “Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, and the “Pro Se Brief,” this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed. [¶ 4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, Carl Leroy Carlson, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Appellant; and it is further [¶ 5] ORDERED that the district court’s April 18, 2019, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. [¶ 6] DATED this 28th day of August, 2019. BY THE COURT: /s/ MICHAEL K. DAVIS 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.