Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011

Darryl Gene Hollis v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided November 21, 2011

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-11-00095-CR ______________________________ DARRYL GENE HOLLIS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court

Upshur County, Texas Trial Court No. 15,710

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Darryl Gene Hollis appeals from his conviction on an open plea of guilty to the court of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, enhanced to habitual offender. Hollis also pled true to the enhancements. The trial court sentenced Hollis to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment.

Hollis’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail, providing possible issues, but explaining why they cannot succeed. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Hollis on August 30, 2011, informing Hollis of his right to file a pro se response and providing him with a copy of the record for review. No response has been filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted: November 18, 2011 Date Decided: November 21, 2011 Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree 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. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3 (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.