Allen Lee Bell v. State

NO. 07-08-0329-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
FEBRUARY 3, 2009
______________________________
ALLEN LEE BELL, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF GARZA COUNTY;
NO. 04-2216; HON. CARTER T. SCHILDKNECHT, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before CAMPBELL, HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Allen Lee Bell, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault
and the trial court deferred adjudication for a period of 10 years and placed appellant on
community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed an application to adjudicate
appellant’s guilt alleging he had violated the terms and conditions of community
supervision. After hearing the evidence, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and
sentenced him to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for a period of 10 years. Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment. We
affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of
his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.
Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App.
1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no
error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided
appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised
appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a
pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,
but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an
independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable
grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346,
102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We
have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
2
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
3