EDWARD RAY BELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed October 22, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-01406-CR
............................
EDWARD RAY BELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F03-52141-PH
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Richter, Francis, and Lang-Miers
 
        Edward Ray Bell waived a jury and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The trial court deferred adjudicating appellant's guilt, placed him on ten years' community supervision, and assessed a $2000 fine. Subsequently, after finding appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment.
        Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.
        We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt.
 
                                                          
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
061406f.u05
 
 

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.