Kishia Ann Marie Holland v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 16, 2023
• Docket: 11-22-00274-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.