Jodie Leroy Wood pleaded no contest to aggravated assault under Wyoming law and received a suspended five-to-seven-year prison sentence in favor of three years of supervised probation from the Campbell County District Court on October 21, 2025. Wood challenged the sentence and probation terms on appeal but ultimately abandoned his case when he failed to represent himself after his attorney withdrew.
Chief Justice Boomgaarden wrote that the court granted Wood's appellate counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California after "a careful review of the Anders brief submitted by appellate counsel, and the record." The Anders procedure allows court-appointed counsel to withdraw when they determine an appeal lacks merit, requiring them to file a brief identifying any potentially arguable issues for the court's review.
The court had given Wood an opportunity to continue his appeal without counsel, ordering that he "was permitted to file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the Court to consider in this appeal." However, Wood "did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted," effectively abandoning his challenge to the sentence.
Wood's case reached the Supreme Court after he entered an unconditional no contest plea pursuant to a plea agreement with prosecutors. The Campbell County District Court imposed what appears to be a lenient sentence given the aggravated assault conviction, suspending the prison term entirely in favor of supervised probation. The underlying facts of the assault were not detailed in the Supreme Court's order.
The Wyoming Public Defender's Office, which represented Wood on appeal, filed the Anders motion in February 2026 after apparently concluding that no meritorious issues existed for appeal. Under Anders, appellate counsel must identify any potentially arguable issues even when seeking to withdraw, allowing courts to conduct an independent review of the record for constitutional violations or other appealable errors.
The Supreme Court's summary disposition reflects the routine nature of Anders withdrawals in criminal cases, where appointed counsel determines that an appeal would be frivolous. By failing to file a pro se brief after being given the opportunity, Wood waived any right to raise issues that his counsel may have missed in their Anders analysis.
The affirmance leaves Wood's probation sentence intact, meaning he will serve three years of supervised probation rather than facing incarceration. The case demonstrates the importance of defendants continuing to participate in their appeals even after counsel withdraws, as the court will only consider issues that are properly raised either by counsel or in a pro se filing.