Brandon Lewis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 140th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0035-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
JULY 31, 2008
______________________________
BRANDON LEWIS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2006-412,546; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., HANCOCK, J., and BOYD, S.J.1
Brandon Lewis appeals from his conviction of four counts of aggravated sexual
assault. He entered open pleas of guilty and, after a trial on punishment, was sentenced
to ten years confinement on each count.
1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignm ent. T E X . G O V ’T
C OD E A N N . §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008).
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders2 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded
that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter
sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and
of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated June 27, 2008, this court also
notified appellant of his right to file his own response by July 28, 2008, if he wished to do
so. To date, no response or request for extension of time to file a response has been
received.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
several potential areas for appeal including jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of
appellant’s plea, the evidence to support the guilty pleas, and error with respect to
punishment. Upon his final analysis, counsel determined that no reversible error existed.3
Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate
counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded the same.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgments are affirmed.4
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
3
Appellant was not adm onished by the trial court that he would have to com ply with the sex offender
registration requirem ents. Appellate counsel concluded that the error was not reversible due to art. 26.13(h)
of the Code of Crim inal Procedure which provides that the failure to do so is not a ground for the defendant
to set aside the conviction, sentence, or plea. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R O C . A N N . art. 26.13(h) (Vernon Supp. 2007).
4
Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.
2
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.
