In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00116-CR

HOLLY ELLEN BRADY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR02872

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Holly Ellen Brady appeals the May 6, 2019, revocation of her community supervision and 

her sentence of two years’ confinement in a state jail facility. The underlying charge was 

possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance, to which she had pled guilty April 1, 

2019, and on which the trial court had found her guilty, sentenced her, and suspended that sentence 

in favor of her short-lived community supervision. 

Brady’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case,

summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding 

that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California and has provided a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion 

with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Brady, provided her with a copy of the record, advised

Brady of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response, and advised her of the deadline 

to file her response. Brady has filed a pro se response in which she has asserted no meritorious 

issues. 

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have reviewed the entire 

appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. 
3

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine 

that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

1

Josh R. Morriss III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 20, 2019

Date Decided: November 21, 2019

Do Not Publish 

1

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request 

to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel 

will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 

she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion 

or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,see TEX.R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must 

be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with 

the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.