Parrish Bell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00207-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00207-CR

Parrish Bell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 87th District Court of Leon County, Texas Judge Amy Thomas Ward, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 22-0077CR

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Parrish Jamal Bell appeals his convictions for trafficking of persons and

aggravated kidnapping. After a jury trial, the trial court sentenced him to

confinement for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—

Institutional Division and a $10,000 fine. In his sole issue, Bell contends the

evidence is insufficient to link him to a prior conviction in support of an

enhancement paragraph. We affirm. BACKGROUND

After a trial on the merits, the jury returned its unanimous verdict,

finding Bell guilty of trafficking of persons and aggravated kidnapping. At the

punishment phase, the State introduced a pen packet from the Wisconsin

Department of Corrections. It shows that Parrish Jamal Bell was convicted of

the offense of manufacturing and/or delivering designer drugs, a felony E

offense, on January 28, 2008. The judgment states that Bell’s date of birth is

March 31, 1977. The pen packet includes several clear pictures of Bell taken

in 2020. Further, the pen packet identifies Bell’s age, gender, race, ethnicity,

weight, height, eye color, and hair color.

The State presented the testimony of Ranger Garrett Chapman who

testified that the photographs in the pen packet are photos of Bell, the

defendant in this case. Chapman also stated that the date of birth listed in the

pen packet is the exact same as Bell’s date of birth, and the height listed in the

pen packet is consistent with Chapman’s report. Chapman also testified that

the offenses listed in the pen packet are consistent with the criminal history

he obtained from the Texas Crime Information Center.

Bell v. State Page 2 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his sole issue, Bell contends the evidence is insufficient to support the

jury’s finding of true on the enhancement paragraph. Specifically, he argues

the evidence is insufficient to link him to the prior Wisconsin conviction.

To establish that a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense, the

State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prior conviction exists,

and (2) the defendant is linked to that conviction. Henry v. State, 509 S.W.3d

915, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). With respect to documentary proof, no specific

document or mode of proof is required to prove these two elements. Flowers v.

State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In reviewing the sufficiency

of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found

the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d

893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Because the jury is the sole judge of the

witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony, we defer to

those determinations. Id. at 899.

Chapman testified that the pictures in the pen packet are photos of Bell.

Additionally, the pen packet identified the defendant in the prior conviction by

name, date of birth, race, gender, ethnicity, height, weight, hair color, and eye

color. The jury was entitled to compare the information in the pen packet with

Bell v. State Page 3 the defendant at trial and base its finding of identity on this information. See

Littles v. State, 726 S.W.2d 26, 31-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (op. on reh’g).

When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold

that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that

Bell was the same Parrish Jamal Bell who was convicted of the felony offense

of manufacturing and/or delivering designer drugs in Wisconsin as alleged in

the enhancement paragraph. See Henry, 509 S.W.3d at 918. We overrule Bell’s

sole issue.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled Bell’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 14, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do not publish CRPM

Bell v. State Page 4