Shawn Bell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-01-529 CR
NO. 09-01-530 CR
NO. 09-01-531 CR
____________________
SHAWN BELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 69499, 83966 and 84910
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shawn Bell entered a guilty plea in Cause No. 69499 to the second degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(a),(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Bell on community supervision for ten years. In a subsequent hearing on the motion to adjudicate guilt, Bell pleaded true to an allegation that, while on community supervision, he committed the offense of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

In the same proceeding in which he pleaded "true" to the motion to adjudicate guilt in Cause No. 69499, Bell pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, as alleged in the indictment in Cause No. 83966. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(a),(c) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The trial court convicted Bell and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Contemporaneously with Cause No. 83966, Bell pleaded guilty in Cause No. 84910 to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(a),(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The trial court convicted Bell and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Appellate counsel filed briefs that conclude no arguable error is presented in these appeals. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 21, 2002, we granted Bell an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeals involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

The appellant was duly admonished of the punishment range for all three offenses and the effect of his guilty pleas, as well as the consequences of a violation of the terms of community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2002); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002). In addition, in Cause No. 69499, Bell cannot now raise error relating to the plea proceeding in the appeal following deferred adjudication of guilt, nor may he appeal the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt in Cause No. 69499. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Bell was provided the opportunity to present punishment evidence.

We have reviewed the clerk's records and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The judgments are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 27, 2002

Opinion Delivered May 29, 2002

Do Not Publish

 

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.