M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 04-21-2019

Case Style:

Darryl Wayne Lewis v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 12-18-00037-CR

Judge: By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ms. Allyson A. Mitchell

Defendant's Attorney: Mr. William M. House Jr.

Description:





Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, with intent to deliver, in a drug-free zone. Appellant pleaded “not guilty.” The jury found Appellant “guilty” of possession with intent to deliver. Appellant then agreed to waive his right to appeal the jury’s guilt finding in exchange for the State’s abandoning the drug-free zone allegation and another possession charge. The jury, after finding the enhancement paragraphs regarding prior felony convictions “true,” sentenced Appellant to ninety-nine years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
2

can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Outcome: As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.