Court Opinion

ID: 9900014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 07:12:07.385448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.445623
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 16, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-22-00274-CR
                                   __________

             KISHIA ANN MARIE HOLLAND, Appellant

                                        V.

                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 39th District Court
                            Haskell County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 7092

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Kishia Ann Marie Holland, originally pled nolo contendere to the
second-degree felony offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance in penalty group one, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four
grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a)–(c) (West Supp.
2023). On August 4, 2021, the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and
placed her on deferred adjudication for a period of six years. As conditions of her
community supervision, Appellant was required to follow all state and federal laws,
report to her community supervision officer, and pay a $2,000 fine and court costs.
      The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision and adjudicate guilt. On August 16, 2022, the trial court held a hearing
on the State’s motion to revoke, during which Appellant pled “not true” to the
allegations, and the State presented evidence in support of its motion. The trial court
found that Appellant violated seven conditions of her community supervision as
alleged, revoked her community supervision, found her guilty, and assessed
Appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for a term of nine years.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised
Appellant of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

                                          2
        Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                          JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE

November 16, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        1
         We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                     3