Rayda v. State, 010621 WYSC, S-20-0133

Docket Nº:S-20-0133
Opinion Judge:MICHAEL K. DAVIS, Chief Justice
Party Name:RUSSELL JOHN RAYDA, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Case Date:January 06, 2021
Court:Supreme Court of Wyoming

2021 WY 1

RUSSELL JOHN RAYDA, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S-20-0133

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 6, 2021

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

MICHAEL K. DAVIS, Chief Justice

[¶ 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 entered unconditional guilty pleas to (1) possession of marijuana, a fourth offense felony and (2) driving while under the influence, a misdemeanor. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i)(A); § 31-5-233. On the felony, the district court imposed a three to five-year sentence, with the misdemeanor sentence to run concurrently. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court's March 17, 2020, "Judgment, Sentence and Order of Incarceration."

[¶ 2] On July 28, 2020, 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 Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief." On September 14, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se letter that described his claims. On September 29, 2020, this Court entered its "Order Denying Permission for Court-Appointed Counsel to Withdraw and Order Requiring Further Briefing." This Court noted that, pursuant to the Anders briefing procedure, appellate counsel is required to "refer[] to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal." Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. This Court concluded appellate counsel should have discussed the potential merit of a motion to suppress. This Court noted that, even in a case involving an unconditional guilty plea, an appellant may claim trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress evidence. See Kitzke v. State, 2002 WY 147, ¶¶ 8-12, 55 P.3d 696, 699-701 (Wyo. 2002).

[¶ 3] Next, on October 29, 2020, Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed another "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel," pursuant to Anders v. California, along with a supplemental Anders brief. This Court subsequently entered an "Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief," which provided Appellant another opportunity to file a pro se brief "specifying the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP