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 Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgments are affirmed.4 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 3 Appellant was not adm onished by the trial court that he would have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