Anthony Wayne Lewis v. State

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed April 5, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00203-CR
ANTHONY WAYNE LEWIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 196th District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32103
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Reichek
Anthony Wayne Lewis appeals his conviction for possession of less than one
gram of a penalty group 1 controlled substance. Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant
to a plea agreement and was placed on deferred adjudication probation on June 20,
2018. In 2019, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation and
adjudicate his guilt alleging appellant had violated the terms of his probation by
using methamphetamine, failing to pay various fees and costs, and failing to perform
his community service hours as ordered. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations
that he failed to pay fees and costs. He pleaded not true to the allegations regarding
his use of methamphetamine and failure to perform community service. Following
a hearing, the trial court found all allegations in the State’s motion to revoke true
and sentenced appellant to one year in prison.
On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in
which she discusses several grounds of potential error, but concludes that none of
the grounds constitutes reversible error. She has also filed an accompanying motion
to withdraw as appointed counsel. When an appellate court receives an Anders brief
asserting no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue
independently by conducting our own review of the record. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (emphasizing that the reviewing court, and not
appointed counsel, determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the
case is “wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991) (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an independent review,
that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record
for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006).
The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a
professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to
advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
–2–
1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel attests
that she sent copies of her motion to withdraw as court-appointed attorney and the
brief in support of that motion to appellant. We advised appellant by letter of his
right to file a pro se response, but no response was filed. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant has right to file pro se
response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
We have reviewed the record in the case and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate courts’
duties in Anders cases). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We
find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Therefore, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
200203F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ANTHONY WAYNE LEWIS, On Appeal from the 196th District
Appellant Court, Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32103.
No. 05-20-00203-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Reichek. Justices Molberg and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Nowell participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered April 5, 2021
–4–