Bell v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 410
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR09-1302
Opinion Delivered
RAYMOND YSEL BELL
APPELLANT
JUNE 1, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
[NO. CR-2006-657]
V.
HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
We have twice ordered rebriefing in this no-merit appeal. In Bell v. State, 2010 Ark.
App. 66, we ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to comply with Rule 4-3(k) of the
Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Counsel then filed a substituted
brief, and we again ordered rebriefing in Bell v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 103, for failure to
comply with Rule 4-3(k). Counsel has now filed another substituted brief appealing
appellant’s revocation of his suspended sentence for aggravated robbery and a motion to
withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. We forwarded counsel’s
brief to appellant, informing him that he could submit points for reversal in accordance with
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(2) by April 11, 2011, if he chose. Appellant did not respond.
Our review of the record reveals that counsel has finally addressed all rulings adverse
to appellant made by the trial court and explained why each adverse ruling is not a
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 410
meritorious ground for reversal. Accordingly, we hold that the requirements of Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4–3(k)(1) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), have been met
and that the appeal has no merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
conviction.
Affirmed; motion granted.
GLOVER and HOOFMAN , JJ., agree.
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.
