MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 2, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 1 5 - 00 0 81 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 00126 - CR DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial D istri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 13 - 51945 - U, F13 - 52021 - U 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justice s Fillmore and Stoddart Opinion b y Justic e Fillmore DeJuan Geil Hollis pleaded nolo co nte ndere to aggravated se xual assault of a child ( cause no. 05

- 15

- 00081

- CR) and indecency with a child ( cause no. 05

- 15

- 00126

- CR). See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . §§ 21.11(a), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West 2011 & Supp. 2014)
. The trial court sentenced Hollis to five years’ imprisonment on the aggravated sexual assault of a child offense. In the indecency with a child case, the trial court deferred adjudicating Hollis’s guilt and placed him on ten years’ community supervision. On appeal, Hollis’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes t he appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573- 2
- S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Hollis
. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Ande rs cases). Hollis filed a pro se response raising several issues
. After reviewing counsel’s brief, Hollis’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal s . Although not arguable issues, we note that both the judgment in cause no. 05

- 15

- 00081

- CR and the order deferring adjudica tion of guilt in cause no. 05

- 15

- 00126

- CR incorrectly reflect there was a plea agreement as to punishment , when, in fact, Hollis entered pleas of nolo contendere with no agreement as to punishment. Accordingly, we modify the sections of the judgment of c onviction and the order deferring adjudication of guilt entitled “terms of plea bargain” to state “open.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). As modified, w e affirm the trial court’s judgment and the order of deferred adjudication
.

Do Not Publish T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 150081F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE- 3
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth Distric t of Texas at Dallas** 
JUDGMENT
DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS , Appellant No. 05

- 15

- 00081

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 51945

- U). Opinion delivered by Justice Fil lmore, Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.” As modified, we AFFIR M the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered October 2, 2015.- 4
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS , Appellant No. 05

- 15

- 00126

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Jud icial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 52021

- U). Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of deferred adjudic ation is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order of deferred adjudication.
Judgment entered October 2, 2015.