Bobby Dean Bass v. The State of Texas Appeal from 181st District Court of Randall County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00326-CR BOBBY DEAN BASS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 24,509-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding April 6, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Bobby Dean Bass filed notice of appeal from his conviction, on an open plea of guilty, of the offense of driving while intoxicated, third or more, 1 and the trial court's imposition of punishment of eight years of imprisonment. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) in support of his motion to withdraw. We will grant counsel's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09 (West 2014). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the appeal is frivolous. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has provided to appellant a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the clerk's and reporter's records, and has notified him of his right to file a pro se response to the brief. He also notified appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review if we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, we granted appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant did not file a response. At trial, appellant pled guilty to the indicted charge, pled “true” to the enhancement provisions in the indictment, was properly admonished by the trial court, and signed plea documents that included a judicial confession. The State presented evidence of appellant's prior convictions, including those set forth in the enhancement paragraphs of the indictment. The State also introduced photographs of appellant’s 2009 accident, the cause of which involved alcohol. And, the State presented the testimony of law enforcement officials who described for the court appellant’s behavior during prior stops and arrests. Appellant testified to his personal and medical history and told the court he was in treatment for his alcohol use and had been sober for six months at the time of his 2 open plea of guilty. Appellant also presented witnesses who testified to appellant’s attempts to overcome his alcohol addiction. In the Anders brief, counsel demonstrates a diligent review of the proceedings, sentencing and trial counsel's representation. He cites to appropriate authority. He then certifies there are no arguably meritorious issues for appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Our review convinces us appellate counsel conducted a complete review of the record and properly considered the governing law. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We agree with counsel there are no arguably meritorious grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted,2 and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.
