Tex. Pena l Code An n. § 21 .11 (Vernon 200 3). 1 NO. 07-08 -024 3-CR; 07-08 -024 4-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA RC H 26, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ JERRY RONALD HOLLA ND, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO S. 1 9392-A and 19393-A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Throug h two ind ictments , appel lan t Jer ry Ron ald Hol lan d w as charg ed with ei g ht count s o f indec ency

w it h a c hil d. A jur

y co nv icted h im o n eac h c o u n t and as ses sed 1 puni sh m ent a t t en y ears i n pr is on and a $2, 000 fine on eac h c ount. The c our t i mposed conc ur re nt s entencin g. A p p e ll ant t imel y fil ed a noti ce of appeal . Hi s c our t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a mot ion to w it hdraw from represent ati on s uppor ted b y anAnder s v . Cali for nia , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ). 2 2 Anders br ief. W e w il l g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdraw and aff ir m the jud g ments of the 2 tr ial co urt. E vid e n c e p re s e n t e d a t t ri a l sh o we d a p p e ll a n t , a ge se ve n ty, im p ro p e rl y t o u c h e d two fem ales, the n ages six

a nd nine . T he victims were cou sins of app ellant ’s g rand dau ghter. The ev ide nce inc lud ed appel lan t’ s w ri tten sta tement to pol ic e and a recorded i nter v iew w it h an o f f icer, and include d trial testim ony o f t he v ictims and a se x ual assau lt nurse examin er. Appel lan t al so tes ti fied, s eeki ng to cl ar ify so me of his st atementsto pol ic e. In t he Anders

br ief s uppor

ti ng hi s motion to w it hdraw , app ell ant’ s c our t- appoi nted coun sel ana lyz ed th e evidence add uced at trial. He certif ied th at after rev iew ing the ent ire re cord and condu cti ng research h e c oul d find no rev ersi ble er ro r and i n hi s o pin ion the a p p e a l was f ri v olo us. C ounse l als o fil ed w it h thi s c our t a copy of a l etter

to appel lan t transmi tti ng the moti on to w it hdraw and the Anders br ief and noti fyi ng appell ant o f the r ig ht to fil e a p ro se respon se. The l etter al so offered a copy

of the rec ord for

appel lan t. See Johns on v

. St ate, 885 S. W .2d 6 41, 6 46- 47 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1994, pet. re fused) , m odi fied in par t by Wils on v

. St ate, 95 5 S. W .2 d 69 3 ( Tex .A pp .–W ac o 19 97 , no pe t. ) . Thi s court also ha s advised app ellantbyletter of h is right t o f ile a respon se to his at torne y ’s Anders br ief. Appel lan t di d notfil e a p ro se respon se. W hen c our

t- appoi nted couns el files a m o ti on to w it hdraw and a br ief i n w hic h he conc lud es no arg uabl e g ro unds for a p p e a l ex is t, w e rev iew the re cord and make a n ind ependentdete rmi nati on. See A nder s, 386 U. S. at 74 4, 87 S.C t. at 14 00 ( the a ppel lat eCou nsel sh all , w it hin fiv e days a fter t he opini on is handed dow n, s end hi s c li ent a 3 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the d efendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pro s e pet it ion for d is creti onar y rev iew . SeeTex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

3 court, and not cou nsel, a f ter f ull e x am inatio n of

the reco rd, det ermin es w het her the case is “ w hol ly fri v olo us” ); acc or

d Bledsoe v. State, 178 S .W .3d 8 24, 8 26 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 05); Mi tch ell v. Sta te, 1 9 3 S . W . 3 d 1 5 3 , 1 5 5 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 s tD i st . ] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t . ) . I f, from our rev iew of the record, we f in d a rgu a b le g ro unds for appe al, we w il l abate the app eal, rem and the case to the trial court, and allow w ithdra w al of court-ap poin ted coun sel. Bledsoe , 178 S. W .3d a t 826 -2 7; Mitch ell , 193 S. W .3d a t 156 . If w e de te rmine from our inde pen den t rev iew

of the en tire record tha t the app eal i s w holly f rivolou s, w e ma y af f irm the t ri al cour

t’ s judg ment byiss uin g an opi nio n ex pla ini ng that w e rev iewed th e record and found no arg uabl e g ro unds for appe al. Bledsoe , 1 7 8 S . W . 3 d a t8 2 6 - 2 7 ; Mitch ell , 193 S.W .3d at 156 . An app ellantmay challenge a cou rt of app e a l’ s f inding of

no arguab le g ro unds for appe al by a pe ti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew fil ed i n the C our

t of C rimi nal Appeal s. Bledsoe , 178 S. W .3d a t 827 & n .6; M itchel l, 193 S. W .3d a t 156 . Af ter rev iew ing counse l’s Anders brief , w e con duct ed o ur ow n revi ew of the en tire record. W e f ind no arguable ground s for app eal. Acco rdingly , the mot ion of app ellant ’s couns el to w it hdraw

i s g ra nted and the j udg ments are aff ir med.

3
Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.