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

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00081-CR

No. 05-15-00126-CR

DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-51945-U, F13-52021-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Fillmore and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Fillmore 

DeJuan Geil Hollis pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated sexual assault of a child (cause 

no. 05-15-00081-CR) and indecency with a child (cause no. 05-15-00126-CR). See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. §§ 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 she 

concludes the 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 Anders 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, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate 

court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the 

appeals.

Although not arguable issues, we note that both the judgment in cause no. 05-15-00081-

CR and the order deferring adjudication 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 conviction and the order deferring adjudication of guilt entitled “terms of plea 

bargain” to state “open.” See TEX. R. APP. 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, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and the order of deferred adjudication.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

150081F.U05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District 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 Fillmore, 

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 AFFIRM 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 Judicial 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 adjudication 

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.