Marcus Jamez Lewis v. State
14-14-00779-CR
Tex. App.Aug 5, 2015Background
- Marcus Jamez Lewis was indicted for possession of 1–4 grams of cocaine with two prior felony enhancements; a jury convicted him and the court assessed 45 years’ confinement.
- Police stopped Lewis’s vehicle for improperly displayed plates; officers observed furtive movements, found crack cocaine on the passenger’s lap, discovered ten baggies of powder cocaine in a cigarette box, and recovered a handgun; Lewis’s license was later found in a safe in the trunk.
- Pretrial and in-court, Lewis submitted pseudolegal/sovereign‑citizen filings and repeatedly used nonstandard legal claims and titles (e.g., “Paramount Security Interest Holder”), creating disruptive courtroom behavior.
- At jury selection Lewis sought to proceed pro se; the trial court conducted a Faretta-type colloquy, concluded Lewis lacked a sufficient understanding to represent himself (or was purposely obstructive), denied self‑representation, and removed him when he continued to disrupt proceedings.
- Lewis challenged (1) denial of self‑representation, (2) failure to hold a competency inquiry, (3) trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress based on alleged unlawfulness of the traffic stop, (4) refusal to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial (ineffective assistance claims), and (5) refusal to give an Article 38.23 jury instruction regarding allegedly conflicting testimony about furtive movements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lewis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying self‑representation | Lewis argued he unequivocally sought to proceed pro se and the court improperly denied Faretta waiver | State argued Lewis’s filings and in‑court behavior showed lack of understanding or purposeful obstruction such that self‑representation could be denied | Court affirmed denial: trial court did not abuse discretion (found lack of ability or obstruction) |
| Whether court erred by not conducting competency inquiry | Lewis argued sovereign‑citizen behavior created bona fide doubt about competency to stand trial | State argued behavior reflected obstinateness, not mental illness; psychologist had found Lewis competent; no sufficient evidence to trigger inquiry | Court affirmed: no bona fide doubt requiring competency hearing |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress based on traffic stop illegality | Lewis argued stop was unlawful because no criminal penalty attached to improper display of plates at the time | State argued legislature had enacted Transportation Code §504.948 (effective June 14, 2013) creating a fine, so stop was lawful | Court affirmed: counsel not ineffective — stop lawful at time of stop |
| Whether trial court erred in denying hearing on motion for new trial (ineffective assistance at punishment) | Lewis alleged counsel failed to investigate/call witnesses (mother’s affidavit) | State argued mother’s affidavit was conclusory and motion lacked specific factual support | Court affirmed: denial of hearing not abuse of discretion; affidavit insufficient to require hearing |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing Article 38.23 jury instruction on allegedly conflicting officer testimony | Lewis pointed to minor differences between officers’ descriptions of furtive movements | State argued differences were immaterial because other facts provided probable cause to search | Court affirmed: discrepancy immaterial to legality of detention/search; instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (criminal defendant has right to self‑representation but waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (States may insist on higher competence for self‑representation than for standing trial to protect trial integrity)
- United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2010) (sovereign‑citizen style disruption may justify terminating pro se status and appointing counsel)
- Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (competency inquiry required only where evidence raises bona fide doubt of competency)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)