Aaron Edward Bell v. The State of TexasAppeal from 372nd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo Nos. 07-13-00234-CR 07-13-00235-CR 07-13-00236-CR 07-13-00237-CR 07-13-00238-CR 07-13-00239-CR AARON EDWARD BELL, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1288725D, 1288726D, 1288727D, 1288728D, 1290870D, 1290871D, Honorable David Scott Wisch, Presiding February 19, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Aaron Edward Bell appeals his six convictions for aggravated robbery. After an open plea of guilty and a plea of true to two enhancements, the trial court sentenced him to fifty years confinement in one case (No. 1288727D/07-13-00236-CR) and forty years confinement in the other five cases to be served concurrently. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Ander’s1 brief wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response or brief pro se. By letter, this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set February 10, 2014, as the deadline to do so. To date, no response or brief has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal including the sufficiency of the evidence, the admonishments, objections made at the punishment hearing, the sentence, arguments of counsel, and the effectiveness of counsel. Appellate counsel also explained that each issue lacked merit. In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed. Per Curiam Do not publish. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2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.