Charles Scott Lewis v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00051-CR

Charles Scott Lewis,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

On appeal from the

13th District Court of Navarro County, Texas Senior Judge H. D. Black Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. D41842-CR

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Charles Scott Lewis guilty of the offenses of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit other felony (count one) and violation of a protective order by assault or stalking (count two). See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 25.07(g)(2)(B), 30.02(d). Finding two felony enhancement paragraphs to be true, the jury assessed his punishment at seventy-five years in prison and eighty-five years in prison, respectively. The trial court sentenced Lewis accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Lewis’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error and he has demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. See id. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Lewis did not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and we find that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Charles Scott Lewis v. The State of Texas Page 2

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments as to count one and count two. Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Lewis is granted.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 26, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motion granted Do not publish CRPM

Charles Scott Lewis v. The State of Texas Page 3