Dustin Cole Spell a/k/a Dustin Spell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-10-00224-CR
_________________
DUSTIN COLE SPELL a/k/a DUSTIN SPELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 95275
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Dustin Cole Spell a/k/a Dustin Spell was indicted for aggravated
robbery. Spell pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the
evidence sufficient to find Spell guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Spell on
community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Spell’s unadjudicated community supervision.
Spell pled “true” to five of the alleged violations of the conditions of his community
supervision. The trial court found that Spell violated the conditions of his community
supervision, found Spell guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at thirty
years of confinement. Spell then filed this appeal.
1
Spell’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Spell filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or
pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous
and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible
error”; or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial
court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable
issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment
of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
_________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on September 17, 2010
Opinion Delivered February 9, 2011
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
