Michael Bell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: April 28, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00357-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 28, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00357-CR ——————————— MICHAEL BELL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1663870

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After appellant, Michael Bell, without an agreed punishment recommendation

from the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery,1 the trial

court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2), (b). for five years. The State, alleging numerous violations of the conditions of

appellant’s community supervision, later moved to adjudicate his guilt. After a

hearing, the trial court found certain allegations true, found appellant guilty, and

assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years. Appellant timely filed a notice

of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and

legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record

and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2006, no pet.).

Counsel has informed the Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the

Anders brief, her motion to withdraw, and the appellate record. Counsel also

informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to

counsel’s Anders brief. Further, counsel provided appellant with a form motion to

access the appellate record and a motion for extension of time to file his Anders

2 response.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed

a response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in the appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing

reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,

767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable

grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines

whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that appellant

may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for an appeal by filing a

petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

2 This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate record and a file response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3 Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Attorney Sunshine L. Crump must immediately

send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3 Appellant’s counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeal and that appellant may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).