Ryan Lewis v. The State of Texas Appeal from 367th District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00388-CR RYAN LEWIS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. F-2014-1353-E ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------A jury convicted appellant Ryan Lewis of driving while intoxicated—third offense—and, after finding an enhancement paragraph true, assessed his punishment at 10 1/2 years’ confinement and a $2,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2017). The trial court sentenced him accordingly. Lewis’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders). Although Lewis was given an opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, he has not done so, nor has the State filed a brief in response to the Anders brief. After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court must independently examine the record to see if any arguable ground may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also consider the briefs and any pro se response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Only after we conduct our own examination to determine whether counsel has correctly assessed the case may we grant his motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Neither the State nor Lewis filed a response to the Anders brief. We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827– 2 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. PER CURIAM PANEL: KERR, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: April 26, 2018 3
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.
