Earl Ray Bevel v. State
12-16-00293-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Bevel was indicted for sexual assault of a child and pleaded guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Bevel to 20 years' imprisonment.
- Bevel's counsel filed an Anders brief with Gainous compliance, asserting no reversible error.
- The appellate panel conducted an independent review and found no reversible error.
- Bevel’s counsel moved to withdraw; the court granted the motion and affirmed the judgment.
- Bevel was advised of his rights and options for discretionary review, with timelines explained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any reversible error exists on appeal | Bevel's last name: no reversible error | State: no reversible error | No reversible error; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (criminal appeals: counsel may file brief indicating no meritorious issues)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (requirement for voir dire and Anders-like procedures)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedure following Anders; review of record for merit)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Anders/Stafford framework for withdrawing counsel)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding; counsel withdrawal and review standards)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (compliance with Kelly v. State regarding counsels' duties)