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Do not publish.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