Lewis v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Opinion
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR09-12
No.
Opinion Delivered July 1, 2009
SHAWN MICHAEL LEWIS
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE SHARP COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2007-116 & CR-07-132]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE HAROLD S. ERWIN,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
In an order filed on October 30, 2008, the Circuit Court of Sharp County revoked
Shawn Michael Lewis’s probation for fleeing, second-degree battery, and first-degree
battery.
Lewis was sentenced on the respective charges to consecutive terms of
imprisonment totaling 384 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He now
appeals the revocation.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules
of the Arkansas Supreme Court (2009), appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by a brief
including both a discussion of matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal
and a statement as to why counsel considers the points raised to be incapable of supporting
a meritorious appeal. Lewis has filed a pro se statement of points for reversal, and the State
has filed a brief asserting that his arguments are either barred or without merit.
There were two rulings by the circuit court that were adverse to Lewis: the court found
that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation, and the court denied Lewis’s
request for leniency and concurrent sentences. Counsel thoroughly discusses these adverse
rulings and explains why they are not grounds for a meritorious appeal.
Lewis’s pro se points include a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his original convictions for fleeing, battery, and possession of a controlled substance. His
arguments include such issues as a coerced guilty plea, mistaken identity, a crooked legal
system, and racial prejudice by the prosecutor and judge. He challenges the length of his
sentences and the court’s decision to run them consecutively. Lewis asserts that he left Sober
Living because he was being denied essential medical treatment, as shown by medical
records of subsequent medications and hospitalizations, and that he was unable to complete
probation paperwork or contact the right person.
The State correctly notes that these issues are all barred on appeal or are without merit.
The guilty plea Lewis signed acknowledged the loss of his right to appeal the original
offenses; furthermore, there was evidence that he did not comply with the conditions of
probation. The sentences were within the statutory range allowed, and running them
consecutively was within the discretion of the circuit court. Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53, 8
S.W.3d 491 (2000). Finally, the presumption of regularity attendant upon every judgment
-2-
CACR09-12
of a court of competent jurisdiction applies to criminal convictions and sentences. Bramucci
v. State, 76 Ark. App. 8, 62 S.W.3d 10 (2001).
From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find compliance with
Rule 4-3(k), and we hold that there is no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion
to withdraw is granted and the conviction is affirmed.
Conviction affirmed; motion granted.
R OBBINS and B ROWN, JJ., agree.
-3-
CACR09-12
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.
