Dennis Wayne Bell v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed as modified; Opinion Filed October 4, 2017. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01278-CR DENNIS WAYNE BELL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08-50594-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Evans, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang Dennis Wayne Bell appeals his conviction, following the adjudication of his guilt, for aggravated robbery. After adjudicating appellant’s guilt, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she 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, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. After reviewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note two errors in the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. The record shows appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt. The judgment, however, erroneously recites appellant pleaded true to the motion to adjudicate and states terms of a plea bargain agreement as “25 years Texas Department of Criminal Justice.” Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt to show the plea to the motion to adjudicate was “not true” and there were no plea bargain terms. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (same). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 161278F.U05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DENNIS WAYNE BELL, Appellant No. 05-16-01278-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08-50594-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Evans and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment adjudicating guilt of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True.” The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “None” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. Judgment entered this 4th day of October, 2017. –3–
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.
