Court Opinion

ID: 2860178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 20:28:19.005809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:55.259015
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-95-00425-CR

William Earl Hollis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. B-94-0594-S, HONORABLE JOHN E. SUTTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

	A jury found appellant guilty of retaliation.  The jury assessed punishment,
enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for seventy-five years.

	Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the
appeal.  See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State,
516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.

	We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would
serve no beneficial purpose.

	The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd

Affirmed

Filed:   May 29, 1996

Do Not Publish