Lewis, Damon Earl

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. WR-57,648-13 WR-57,648-14 WR-57,648-15 WR-57,648-16

EX PARTE DAMON EARL LEWIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. 0216853, 0216854, 0216855, AND 0216856 IN THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT HOPKINS COUNTY

Per curiam. FINLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion joined by SCHENCK, P.J.; YEARY, J., dissented.

OPINION A jury convicted Applicant in 2002 of four offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two offenses of indecency with a child by contact. The State alleged abuse of two victims: his stepdaughter, C.C., and her friend, M.N. At trial, both girls testified, and the State presented SANE Kim Basinger’s testimony LEWIS - 2 regarding C.C.’s medical examination. There was no such medical examination of M.N. The jury convicted Applicant on charges involving C.C. but acquitted on those involving M.N.

Applicant presents Basinger’s recantation and newly available photographs of C.C.’s 2001 SANE examination. Basinger now acknowledges that medical consensus has evolved, and her trial testimony was incorrect. Dr. Joyce Adams, a board-certified pediatrician, confirms that under current guidelines, the SANE examination findings would be classified as non-specific or normal.

Article 11.073 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for relief when relevant scientific evidence contradicts scientific evidence presented at trial, was not previously ascertainable through reasonable diligence, would be admissible at trial, and by a preponderance of the evidence would have changed the verdict. See Ex parte Robbins, 478 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

This Court has made an independent review of the record. Basinger’s recantation and the photographs constitute newly available evidence not previously ascertainable, and the evidence is admissible. The jury’s verdict pattern of convicting on charges supported by medical evidence while acquitting on charges lacking medical corroboration suggests that the jury strongly depended on SANE LEWIS - 3 Basinger’s now-recanted testimony.

The trial court entered findings agreed upon by both Applicant and the State and recommends that this Court grant Applicant a new trial. We agree with the trial court that Applicant has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, he would not have been convicted without SANE Basinger’s trial testimony. Relief is granted.

The judgments in cause numbers 0216853, 0216854, 0216855, and 0216856 in the 8th District Court of Hopkins County are set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Hopkins County to answer the charges as set out in the informations. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: February 12, 2026 Do not publish

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. WR-57,648-13 WR-57,648-14 WR-57,648-15 WR-57,648-16

EX PARTE DAMON EARL LEWIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. 0216853, 0216854, 0216855, AND 0216856 IN THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT HOPKINS COUNTY Finley, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Schenck, P.J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION Applicant was convicted in 2002 of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by contact for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter C.C. Before the Court is Applicant’s -13 thru -16 LEWIS DISSENT— 2 habeas applications—Applicant’s second subsequent habeas applications. In each habeas application, Applicant raises three grounds for relief. Applicant’s first ground for relief is a due process claim that alleges that the State knowingly or unknowingly used false testimony at Applicant’s trial. Applicant’s second ground for relief is an Article 11.073 claim premised on SANE Nurse Kim Basinger’s change of expert opinion since her testimony at Applicant’s trial. And Applicant’s third ground for relief is an alternative Article 11.073 claim that relies on general advances in medical research that he argues undermine the scientific validity of hymenal examination testimony, independent of SANE Basinger’s change of opinion.

The parties jointly submitted agreed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the habeas court adopted. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are limited to Applicant’s second ground for relief and recommend that this Court grant relief. In filing their agreed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the parties agreed that it was appropriate to defer further development and litigation of Applicant’s first and third grounds for relief. Based on this agreement, the habeas court found that further development of Applicant’s first and third grounds for relief was unnecessary and abated those grounds for relief. The habeas court asks LEWIS DISSENT— 3 this Court to remand for full development of grounds one and three if this Court does not grant relief on Applicant’s second ground.

This Court has repeteadly disfavored piecemeal litigation. In Ex parte Roark, we explained that “without full presentment and examination of all issues in this application, we only invite piecemeal litigation, which is an inappropriate use of the Great Writ. Generally, all of an applicant’s claims should be fully developed and ready to be resolved when the record is transmitted to this Court.” 662 S.W.3d 469, 469–70 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). We have previously remanded similar attempts by habeas courts to engage in piecemeal litigation. See, e.g., Ex parte Huffman, No. WR-96,031-01, 2025 WL 1177479, at *1 (Tex. Crim.

App. Apr. 23, 2025); Ex parte Sherrill, No. WR-79,186-03, 2025 WL 1177960, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 23, 2025); Ex parte Lucio, No. WR-72,702-05, 2024 WL 3051367, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. June 19, 2024); Ex parte Hopper, No. WR-94,327- 01, 2024 WL 1296740, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2024).

We should do the same here. Because the Court does not, and instead bucks its normal practice in a “remand for some but not for all” manner, I respectfully dissent.

LEWIS DISSENT— 4

Filed: February 12, 2026 Publish