Donald Ray Lewis v. The State of Texas

Sex Offender

Case Number: 01-16-00261-CR

Judge: Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Chief Justice Radack Justice Brown Justice Lloyd

Court: In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Daniel McCrory
The Honorable Kim K Ogg

Defendant's Attorney:

Kevin Keating

Description:

MoreLaw Receptionist Services

Never Miss Another Call With MoreLaw's Receptionists Answering Your Calls

After a jury trial, Donald Ray Lewis was found guilty of the offense of
aggravated assault of a family member and was sentenced to 35 years’ incarceration
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Lewis
timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is
without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the
record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel advised Lewis of his right to access to the record and provided Lewis
with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Lewis of his
right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The deadline for Lewis to file his
pro se response was December 28, 2016. Appellant filed no response and requested
no extension of time.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that
an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal
by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

Outcome:

< We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 Attorney Kevin P. Keating must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. >

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: