State of Louisiana v. Dewayne Shaun Lewis

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-60

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DEWAYNE SHAUN LEWIS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 73647
HONORABLE LESTER P. KEES, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy and
Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED.

William E. Tilley
District Attorney
Mark H. Kramar
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71496-1188
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Mark O. Foster
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 2057
Natchitoches, LA 71457
(318) 572-5693
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
DeWayne Shaun Lewis

AMY, Judge.

The defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of armed robbery as part of

a plea agreement in which the State agreed to dismiss other charges. The trial court

sentenced the defendant to fifteen years at hard labor, without the benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. On appeal, the defendant’s attorney

filed an Anders brief with this court. For the following reasons, we affirm the

defendant’s conviction and sentence. We grant the motion to withdraw.

Factual and Procedural Background

The State alleged that, in September 2007, the defendant and an accomplice

entered a convenience store in Leesville. Armed with a weapon, the two men

allegedly took in excess of one thousand dollars from the cash register and from a

customer.

By bill of information, the State charged the defendant and the alleged

accomplice with one count of armed robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:64. The State

also charged the two men with one count of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling,

in violation of La.R.S. 14:62.2; one count of theft of a firearm, in violation of La.R.S.

14:67.15; one count of conspiracy to commit simple burglary of an inhabited

dwelling, in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and La.R.S. 14:62.2; one count of conspiracy

to commit theft of a firearm, in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and La.R.S. 14:67.15; and

one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and

and La.R.S. 14:64.

The defendant initially entered a plea of not guilty to the above charges.

However, on June 4, 2008, the defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of armed

robbery pursuant to a plea agreement wherein the State dismissed the remaining

charges. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve fifteen years at hard labor,

without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court

subsequently denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of sentence.

On appeal, defense counsel filed a brief seeking to withdraw pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).

Discussion

Errors Patent

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for error patent

on the face of the record. Having reviewed the record in this regard, we find no errors

patent.

Anders Analysis

The defendant’s counsel alleges that no errors exist that would support reversal

of the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Accordingly, he seeks to withdraw.

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 531 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), the fourth

circuit set forth the Anders analysis as follows:

When appointed counsel has filed a brief indicating that no non-
frivolous issues and no ruling arguably supporting an appeal were found
after a conscientious review of the record, Anders requires that counsel
move to withdraw. This motion will not be acted on until this court
performs a thorough independent review of the record after providing
the appellant an opportunity to file a brief in his or her own behalf. This
court’s review of the record will consist of (1) a review of the bill of
information or indictment to insure the defendant was properly charged;
(2) a review of all minute entries to insure the defendant was present at
all crucial stages of the proceedings, the jury composition and verdict
were correct and the sentence is legal; (3) a review of all pleadings in
the record; (4) a review of the jury sheets; and (5) a review of all
transcripts to determine if any ruling provides an arguable basis for
appeal. Under C.Cr.P. art. 914.1(D) this Court will order that the appeal
record be supplemented with pleadings, minute entries and transcripts
when the record filed in this Court is not sufficient to perform this
review.

2

The Louisiana Supreme Court approved this analysis in State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.

4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176.

Pursuant to the Anders analysis enunciated in Benjamin, we have performed

a thorough review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the bill of

information, and the transcripts. This review indicates that the defendant was

properly charged by bill of information, that he was present and represented by

counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and that he entered a free and voluntary

guilty plea after being advised of his rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S.

238, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969). Furthermore, the sentences imposed were legal.

DECREE

Having found no issues to support an assignment of error on appeal, we affirm

the defendant’s conviction and sentence. We grant defense counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED.

3

09-60

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA
Appellee

VERSUS

DEWAYNE SHAUN LEWIS
Defendant-Appellant

On Appeal from the Thirtieth Judicial District Court, Docket Number 73647, Parish
of Vernon, State of Louisiana, Honorable Lester P. Kees, Judge.

ORDER

After consideration of appellate counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel and
the appeal presently pending in the above-captioned matter;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this ______ day of _________________, 2009.

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

___________________________________
Chief Judge Ulysses G. Thibodeaux

___________________________________
Judge Marc T. Amy

___________________________________
Judge Shannon J. Gremillion