Court Opinion

ID: 4458190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-22 11:11:52.552274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:51:28.851961
License: Public Domain

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
                                 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.

                                                  2
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.
                                                            3