Alton Lee Lewis, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 204th District Court of Dallas County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Alton Lee Lewis, Jr.

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-03-00024-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

Alton Lee Lewis, Jr. entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14. The trial court accepted his plea of guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement for 20 years and a fine of $2,500. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she advises the court that she has conscientiously examined the record. In her brief, counsel reviews the trial court=s jurisdiction, the validity of the indictment, appellant=s plea, the admonishments given by the trial court, the voluntariness of the plea, the admission of appellant=s confession, the sufficiency of the evidence, the assessment of punishment, the validity of the judgment, and the effectiveness of trial counsel. Counsel discusses the applicable law and concludes that there are no grounds upon which to predicate a reversal.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. The record supports the trial court=s conclusion that appellant=s plea was freely and voluntarily entered. The record does not reflect that counsel=s representation was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel=s error, appellant would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Cr.App.1997), cert. den=d, 525 U.S. 810 (1998). Appellant was afforded reasonably effective assistance of counsel in the trial court. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

September 4, 2003

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.