NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, 

Appellant. 

vs. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee. 

From the 51ST Judicial District Court 

ofT om Green County, Texas 

Honorable Barbara Walther, Judge Presiding 

BRIEF OF APPELLANT 

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED 

1 

KIRK HAWKINS 

17 South Chadbourne, Suite 401 

P.O. Box 3645 

San Angelo, Texas 76902 

325-658-5585 

State Bar No. 09250400 

E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................... ... ............................... 2 

LIST OF AUTHORITIES....................................... ........ ........ 3 

NAMES OF ALL PARTIES..................................... .. ......... .... 5 

STATEMENTOFTHECASE................................................. 5 

STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE.............................. ............ 7 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE........ ................................. 14 

OBJECTIONS......... ... ................ ......................................... 14 

EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL....... ...................................... 14 

PUNISIIMENT.......... ........................................................ .. 15 

CONCLUSION............................................. ..... .................. 15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.................................................. 15 

2 
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES Page 

Anders v. California 386 US 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed 2nd 493 

(1963) 6 

Crawford v. Washington 541 US 36 (2004) 10 

Delacruz v. State 167 SW3d 905 at 906 (Tx.App.-Texarkana 

2005) 15 

High v. State 573 SW2d 807 (Tx.Crim.App. 1978 6 

Stafford v. State 813 SW2d 503 (Tx.Crim.App. 1991) 6,14 

Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 

80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) 14 

Winchester v. State 246 SW3d 386 at 388 (Tx.App.-Amarillo 2008) 15 

STATUTES 

Texas Penal Code, Section 71.02(c) 5 

3 
NO. 03-15-00028-CR 

(Trial Court No. A110418SB) 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD SUPREME ruDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, 

Appellant. 

vs. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee. 

From the 51ST Judicial District Court 

of Tom Green County, Texas 

Honorable Barbara Walther, Judge Presiding 

BRIEF OF APPELLANT 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME 

ruDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS: 

COMES NOW, NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, by and through her courtappointed attorney, the Appellant in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and 

4 
files this Brief of Appellant, and in support thereof would show this Honorable 

Court as follows: 

NAMESOFALLPARTIES 

In order that the members of the Court may determine disqualifications or 

refusal pursuant to Rule 74(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of all parties interested in 

the outcome and their attorneys of record: 

1. Appellant, NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS #1964121, 1210 Coryell Road, 

Gatesville, Texas 76528. 

2. Defense and trial attorney, CHRISTIANSON HARTMAN, State Bar No. 

24056682, One West Broadway, Sweetwater, Texas 79556. 

3. Attorney of record on appeal for Appellant, KIRK HAWKINS, State Bar 

No. 09250400, P.O. Box 3645, San Angelo, Texas 76902. 

4. The Honorable Barbara Walther, Trial Judge, Tom Green County 

Courthouse, 112 West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903. 

5. Appellee, STATE OF TEXAS, represented by Ms. Meagan White, Assistant 

District Attorney, Tom Green County Courthouse, Court Street Annex, 124 

West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The Appellant, NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, was indicted on June 7, 2011 

(CR p. 11 ). On January 31, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to the offense of engaging 

in organized criminal activity, a 1st degree felony (Texas Penal Code Section 

71.02(c)) (RR 2, p. 6). Based on a plea agreement, Appellant was placed on a ten5 
year deferred adjudication probation (CR p. 23) on July 9, 2013. The State filed a 

Motion to Revoke Deferred Adjudication and to Proceed to Adjudicate Motion to 

Revoke on April 10, 2014 (CR p. 53-55). The State's motion was heard on 

October 15, 2014. The State abandoned allegations paragraph III, 4 and 11, and 

the Appellant pled "not true" to the remaining ten (10) allegations (RR 3, p. 8, 1. 8-

14). After hearing testimony, the Court found all of the remaining allegations true 

and revoked Appellant's probation (RR 3, p. 66, 1. 7-18). After hearing evidence 

as to punishment, the Court sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years confmement 

in the Texas Department of Corrections (RR 3, p. 90, 1. 7) (CR p. 49). 

Although not reflected in the Clerk's record submitted to this Court, a 

Motion for New Trial was filed on November 13, 2014. Appellant filed a Notice 

of Appeal on January 7, 2015 (CR p. 65). 

Counsel has reviewed the record and correspondence from the Appellant. 

Counsel can find no arguable grounds on which to appeal. Counsel will attempt to 

comply with the guidelines regarding such appeals as set forth in High v. State 573 

SW2d 807 (Tx.Crim.App. 1978), Anders v. California 386 US 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 

18 L.Ed 2nd 493 (1963), and Stafford v. State 813 SW2d 503 (Tx.Crim.App. 1991). 

The record consists of the Clerk's record in one (1) volume of 98 pages 

which will be referred to as "CR", and the reporter's record which consist of four 

( 4) volumes, which will be referred to as "RR". Volume one contains the master 

6 
index; Volume two is the transcription of Appellant's initial plea of guilty; Volume 

three is the record on the motion to adjudicate; and Volume four contains the 

exhibits. 

STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 

The State called Angelica Maria Robertson, an officer with the Concho 

Valley Community Supervisions and Corrections Department. She testified 

generally that Appellant had failed to make some payments on her probation, had 

not been submitting inability to pay statements, and didn't report for a month, and 

had not reported since April 23, 2014. She specifically testified that Appellant had 

not paid for March through August 2012, November 2012, January through June 

2013, and January 2014 through March 2014 (RR 3, p. 11, 1. 4-20). Specifically, 

she testified that she had not submitted her inability to pay forms for November 

2012 and January through August 2013, and that further she had not reported in 

April2013 and had not reported since April2014 (RR 3, p. 12, 1. 8-22). Appellant 

had also not completed her community service for the months of April through 

December 2012, January through December 2013, nor from January through 

March 2014. Appellant had complained of knee injury and needing surgery, but 

never provided a doctor's excuse (RR 3, p. 14, 1. 3 through p. 15, 1. 2). Appellant 

had also failed to pay numerous urinalysis fees (RR 3, p. 15, 1. 11 ). Appellant had 

also failed to report an arrest on or about March 8, 2013 (RR 3, p. 15, 1. 20), and 

7 
she failed to provide proof of attendance to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics 

Anonymous for April and May 2013, and had not provided any proof since 

February 2014 (RR 3, p. 16, 1. 6-15). When asked for the Departments' 

recommendation, Ms. Robertson recommended revocation because of the new 

offense she had committed which was the same kind of offense for which she was 

on probation (RR 3, p. 17, 1. 3-8). She also testified that Charles Mitchell was on a 

misdemeanor marijuana probation (RR 3, p. 16, 1. 18 through p. 17, 1. 2). 

On cross-examination, Ms. Robertson admitted that she was testifying from 

the probation records and that the Appellant's three (3) previous officers were no 

longer with the department (RR 3, p. 18, 1. 3). When questioned about her ability 

to work, she testified that the Appellant had been working at Goodfellow Air Force 

Base since May 2012, and that she knew that she had had a hysterectomy in 

January 2014 (RR 3, p. 19, 1. 7-21). When asked about Charles Mitchell, she 

testified that the Appellant had been arrested with Charles Mitchell (RR 3, p. 21, 1. 

19). She also testified that Appellant had a SASE evaluation which indicated a low 

probability of having a substance abuse problem (RR 3, p. 23, 1. 4). 

The State then called Kimberly Blanco, a police officer with the San Angelo 

Police Department, who testified concerning the arrest on March 8, 2013. She had 

been called to a domestic disturbance at 226 North Magdalen, and when she 

approached, there was a car backing out of the driveway. It was driven by the 

8 
Appellant with her son, Charles Mitchell, as the passenger (RR 3, p. 27, 1. 19 top. 

28, 1.6). She arrested Charles Mitchell on city warrants (RR 3, p. 29, 1. 21 ), and 

found marijuana in his pocket. Based on that, she conducted a probable cause 

search of the vehicle. She testified that the Appellant seemed nervous and wanted 

to get back in the vehicle (RR 3, p. 29, 1. 4-24). The officer discovered a plastic 

comer bag on the driver's side floor which contained residue and an orange pill 

bottle with a while crystal-like substance under the driver's seat (RR 3. P. 30, 1. 2-

24). The State introduced their Exhibits 1-6 which were photographs taken of the 

items at the scene and these were admitted without objection (RR 3, p. 31 ). The 

officer also found a female's wallet containing over one thousand dollars cash and 

a lot of the denominations were twenties (RR 3, p. 33, 1. 1-16). She further 

testified that the incident had occurred at 10:00 p.m. (which is a violation of the 

Appellant's curfew to be home by 10:00 p.m.) (RR 3, p. 34, 1. 3-7). 

On cross-examination, she explained that she and her superior officers 

decided that the cash was not contraband and the Appellant could keep it (RR 3, p. 

38, 1. 12). When defense counsel asked Appellant whether Charles Mitchell had 

admitted to driving the vehicle that night, the State objected as hearsay. Counsel 

eventually withdrew the question (RR 3, p. 38, 1. 25 to 39, 1. 2, p. 40, 1. 6). She 

further testified that she found a rental agreement in the vehicle where the 

Appellant had rented the vehicle (RR 3, p. 41, 1. 16). 

9 
The State also called Marissa Silva Gomez who is a forensic scientist with 

the Texas Department of Public Safety Lab in Midland, Texas. The State then 

introduced Exhibits 7 and 8 which were admitted without objection (RR 3, p. 47, 1. 

10). The witness testified that the State's Exhibit #8 contained 1.29 grams of 

cocaine (RR 3, p. 47, 1. 18-20). The State then rested their case. 

Appellant called Justin Yarborough, a Narcotics Detective with the San 

Angelo Police Department. He testified that at the scene it was not clear who the 

controlled substance belonged to (RR 3, p. 53, 1. 11). When asked whether Charles 

Mitchell had admitted that the drugs were his, the State objected. The Court and 

counsel had a discussion regarding Crawford v. Washington 541 US 36 (2004), 

and eventually defense counsel was able to rephrase the question and the officer 

admitted that Charles Mitchell had made such an admission (RR 3, p. 56, 1. 15-19). 

On cross-examination by the State's attorney, the officer testified that 

Mitchell later withdrew the admission (RR 3, p. 57, 1. 1). 

On re-direct examination he stated that Mitchell's retraction was after 

approximately a five (5) minute conversation he had with him. When asked if 

Mitchell knew the location of the pill bottle, once again the State objected as to 

hearsay. After discussion the Court allowed defense counsel to continue (RR 3, p. 

59,1.21). 

10 
On re-cross examination the State was able to elicit that at some point in the 

evening the pill bottle was moved and that Mitchell had not moved it (RR 3, p. 61, 

1. 2). 

After hearing the testimony, the Court revoked the Appellant's probation 

and proceeded with the adjudication and punishment (RR 3, p. 66, 1. 7-18). 

In this phase the State first introduced their Exhibit #8 which was a 

penitentiary packet containing two (2) prior felony convictions. This was admitted 

into evidence with no objection. 

The State also presented testimony from Rodney Black, an officer with the 

San Angelo Police Department with twenty-one (21) years' experience. He 

testified as to the drug investigation which began in 20 1 0 regarding cocaine 

trafficking. The State introduced State's Exhibit #11 which was an organizational 

scheme, without objection (RR 3, p. 68 through p. 69). When asked about the 

statements of co-defendant, Fred Lewis, defense counsel objected as to hearsay and 

the State more or less reviewed the question (RR 3, p. 70, 1. 8). According to 

Detective Black, the organization had been operating for approximately a year and 

they were moving a kilo of cocaine every three (3) weeks with a value of about 

$200,000.00 changing hands (RR 3, p. 70, 1. 15-25). He further described 

Appellant as a middleman who distributed the cocaine and allowed her son to cook 

it in the microwave (RR 3, p. 71). On cross-examination Black testified that 

11 
Appellant had admitted to delivering multiple ounces to multiple people (RR 3, p. 

72, 1. 16). Black testified Tyrell Lewis was her son and that Fred Lewis was her 

brother (RR 3, p. 73, 1. 12). 

The Appellant testified on her own behalf, stating that she had a five-yearold son that she had gotten when he was three days old, although he was not 

related to her (RR 3, p. 75, 1. 2 to p. 76, 1. 4). Appellant's counsel introduced the 

defense's Exhibit #1, without objection, which was a copy of the Court order 

granting the Appellant custody of the child (RR 3, p. 77). Appellant also testified 

as to her medical problems and that she was supposed to have surgery on her right 

knee and about her hysterectomy in January 2014. She testified that after the 

surgery, she had been in the hospital for eight (8) days with blood clots. She had 

chest pains which were related to possible blood clots in her lung (RR 3, p. 78-79). 

Appellant's counsel also introduced Exhibits #2 and #3 which were medical 

records from Shannon Hospital and from Dr. Lind who is the Coumadin Clinic 

director (RR 3, p. 79-80). Appellant testified that she went to the clinic once a 

week (RR 3, p. 81, 1. 10), and that she had been hospitalized twice (RR 3, p. 83). 

Appellant asked that she be sent to CRTC (Community Rehabilitation and 

Treatment Center), but she also denied having a problem with drugs and alcohol 

(RR 3, p. 84, 1. 2-11). On cross-examination, Appellant admitted she told Tracy 

12 
Connolly, her probation officer, that she did not have a substance abuse problem 

(RR 3, p. 86, 1. 1-6). 

After hearing fmal arguments, the Court sentenced the Appellant to twenty 

(20) days in the Texas Department of Corrections (RR 3, p. 90, 1. 7). 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 

The evidence was sufficient to prove to the Court that Appellant failed to 

make some of her payments as ordered by the Court and alleged in allegation 1; 

that Appellant had failed to provide statements of her inability to pay as per 

allegation 2; and that Appellant had possessed cocaine on or about March 8, 2013 

as alleged in allegation 3. Appellant had also had contact with Charles Mitchell as 

per allegation 5, and failed to report in person for April 2013, allegation 6. 

Appellant had failed to do her community service hours as alleged in allegation 7, 

and had not paid for urinalysis examination as alleged in allegation 8. Appellant 

also failed to report her arrest on March 8, 2013, as alleged in allegation 9, and she 

had also violated her curfew on that same day, as alleged in allegation 10. The 

Court also found that Appellant failed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or 

Narcotics Anonymous meetings twice weekly and return the signed attendance 

receipts as alleged for the months of April and May 2013, and February 2014, as 

per the allegation number 12 in the State's Motion to Revoke (CR p. 52-55). 

13 
OBJECTIONS 

The objections have been addressed in the State of the Evidence. The 

State's objections to Appellant's counsel's examination of the witnesses were 

based on hearsay. It appears that counsel was able to get the testimony he desired 

by rephrasing his questions. The Court sustained Appellant's hearsay objection to 

the State's examination ofDetective Justin Yarborough regarding the statements of 

Fred Lewis (RR 3, p. 70, 1. 8). There were no real adverse rulings against the 

Appellant on any of the objections. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL 

Appellant's counsel cross-examined Angelica Robertson extensively as well 

as the arresting officer Kimberly Blanco. He attempted, although apparently 

unsuccessful, to try to steer the ownership of the drugs to Charles Mitchell and 

away from the Appellant. He also presented mitigation evidence concerning the 

five-year-old boy that Appellant cared for and the need for her to be able to raise 

him as well as her medical conditions and issues. The Trial Counsel's 

performance far exceeded the standards for effective assistance of counsel based 

on the definition of ineffective assistance as per Stafford v. State 813 SW2d 503 

(Tx.Crim.App. 1991) and Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 

80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 

14 
PUNISHMENT 

The Courts have traditionally held that punishment assessed within the range 

of punishment set by the Legislature in a valid statute is not excessive, cruel or 

unusual. Winchester v. State (petition for discretionary review refused) and 

Delacruz v. State. The Court assessed punishment within the statutory range for a 

1st degree felony. 

CONCLUSION 

After reviewing the record of the case, Appellant counsel can find no 

reversible error. 

Respectfully submitted, 

I sf Kirk Hawkins 

KIRK HAWKINS 

P.O. BOX 3645 

SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902 

325/658-5585 

STATE BAR NO. 09250400 

E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on Ms. Meagan 

White, Assistant District Attorney, Tom Green County Courthouse, Court Street 

Annex, 124 West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903; and on Appellant, Ms. 

Nakia DeShawn Lewis #1964121, 1210 Coryell Road, Gatesville, Texas 76528, on 

this if ~ day of April, 2015. · 

15 
I further certify that I have mailed a notice to the Appellant at the abovereferenced address on April '7 , 2015, informing of my intention of filing a 

frivolous appeal and advising her of her rights to file her own brief and to review 

the record. 

/s/ Kirk Hawkins 

Kirk Hawkins 

NOTICE TO APPELLANT, NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS 

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE YOUR OWN BRIEF IN THIS 

CAUSE. YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THE COURT 

RECORD AND THE COURT REPORTER'S RECORD. YOU HAVE 

TIDRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF TIDS BRIEF 

IN WHICH TO PREP ARE AND SUBMIT YOUR OWN BRIEF. 

/s/ Kirk Hawkins 

Kirk Hawkins 

16 
NO. 03-15-00028-CR 

(Trial Court No. A110418SB) 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, 

Appellant. 

VS. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee. 

From the 51ST Judicial District Court 

of Tom Green County, Texas 

Honorable Barbara Walther, Judge Presiding 

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COMPLIANCE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS: 

COMES NOW, KIRK HAWKINS, court-appointed attorney for Appellant 

NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, and files this Certificate of Word Compliance, and 

would submit the following: 
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify that 

this brief contains 2,567 words (excluding the caption, table of contents, table of 

authorities, signature, proof of service, certification, and certificate of compliance). 

This is a computer-generated document created in Microsoft Word, using 14-point 

typeface for all text, except for footnotes which are in 12-point typeface. In making 

this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the 

software used to prepare the document. 

_._.......__._, ..... ,_ HAWKINS 

P.O. BOX 3645 

SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902 

325/658-5585 

STATE BAR NO. 09250400 

E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on Ms. Meagan 

White, Assistant District Attorney, Tom Green County Courthouse, Court Street 

Annex, 124 West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903; and on Appellant, Nakia 

Deshawn Lewis #1964121, 1210 Coryell Road, Gatesville, Texas 76528 on this 

7 day of April, 2015. ~ ---' 

Kirk Hawkills 
) ) 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee SITTING AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL 

In compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 378 

(1967), I, Kirk Hawkins, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, NAKIA 

DESHA WN LEWIS, in the above-referenced appeal, do hereby certify, in writing, 

to the Court that I have: 

1. Notified Appellant that I filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with an 

accompanying Anders brief, and provided a copy of each to Appellant; 

2. Informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response identifying what she 

believes to be meritorious grounds to be raised in her appeal, should she so 

desire; 

3. Advised Appellant of her right to review the appellate record, should she 

wish to do so, preparatory to filing that response; 

4. Explained the process for obtaining the appellate record, provided a Motion 

for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only appellant's signature 

and the date, and provided the mailing address for this Court; and 

5. Informed appellant of her right to seek discretionary review pro se should 

this Court declare her appeal frivolous. 
~~ P.O. BOX 3645 

SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902 

325-658-5585 

STATE BAR NO. 09250400 

E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
April 7, 2015 

Nakia Deshawn Lewis #1964121 

121 0 Coryell Road 

Gatesville, Texas 76528 

RE: Case No. 03-15-00028-CR; Nakia Deshawn Lewis, Appellant v. The State of 

Texas, Appellee 

Dear Ms. Lewis: 

Enclosed please find a copy of the motion to withdraw as counsel and brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California that I have prepared and filed in your case. After a diligent search of both the clerk's 

record and reporter's record in your case and a review ofthe applicable law, it is my opinion that 

no reversible error occurred at your adjudication proceeding. 

Whenever appellant counsel files a motion such as this, the law provides the appellant the right 

to review the record and file a response identifying to the appellate court any grounds he thinks 

are non-frivolous issues to be raised on his behalf that the appellate court should consider in 

deciding whether the case presents any meritorious grounds for appeal. Because I have filed this 

motion and brief, you now have the right to review the record and file a response or brief if you 

so choose. To assist you in obtaining the record if you wish to review it, I have enclosed a 

Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record for you to file. In order to obtain the appellate 

record, you must sign and date the motion and mail it to the Third Court of Appeals within ten 

days of the date of this letter at the following address: 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Third Court of Appeals 

Post Office Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711 

The Court of Appeals will then direct the clerk of the trial court to provide you with a copy of the 

appellate record. Your response will be due to be filed in the Third Court of Appeals within 30 

days of the date the clerk provides the record to you. 

Whether or not you file a response, the law requires the Court of Appeals to review the record to 

determine if the Court agrees with my assessment that no meritorious grounds for appeal exist, 
i.e., that no reversible error exists. If the Court does not agree, but instead believes there are 

non-frivolous issues to be raised on your behalf, the Court must abate the appeal to have another 

attorney appointed to review the record on your behalf. 

Should the Court of Appeals ultimately determine that there are no meritorious grounds to be 

raised and that your appeal is frivolous, the Court will affirm your adjudication. You may then 

file a prose petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Such 

petition must be filed within 30 days of the date the Court of Appeals renders its judgment. 

Feel free to write me if you have any questions about the procedure utilized in your appeal. I 

will do my best to answer any questions you may have. 

Kirk Hawkins 

KH/ahe 

Enclosures