eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2007-03

Natasha Kay Hollis v. State ( 2007 )


Menu:

















  • In The

    Court of Appeals

    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



    ______________________________


    No. 06-06-00121-CR

    ______________________________




    NATASHA KAY HOLLIS, Appellant


    V.


    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




    On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

    Wood County, Texas

    Trial Court No. 17,169-2002








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

    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss


    MEMORANDUM OPINION


    Natasha Kay Hollis has appealed from the revocation of her community supervision for the underlying offense of intoxication manslaughter. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.08 (Vernon 2003). The trial court sentenced Hollis to two years' confinement and a $1,000.00 fine. She was also to pay $4,231.98 in restitution. Hollis was represented by retained counsel at trial and by different, appointed, counsel on appeal.

    Appellate counsel filed a brief January 2, 2007, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Hollis a copy of the brief and advised her by letter that he believes there are no arguable contentions of error. He also informed Hollis of her right to review the record and file a pro se response. No response has been filed, and Hollis has not sought additional time in which to prepare a response.

    Counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). See also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel concluded from his review of the record that there is no arguable point of error to support the appeal.

    Counsel further states in the brief that the "plea, conviction and sentencing were done according to statutory and case law" and that a plea of "true" was entered to the allegations of Hollis' violation of the terms and conditions of her community supervision.

    In his review of the record, counsel did find and had corrected an error in the trial court's judgment that included a finding of "Yes-deadly weapon used or exhibited." A judgment nunc pro tunc was entered December 8, 2006, changing this wording to "Not Applicable." Thus, this error has been corrected.

    However, in our review of the record, we note that the judgment nunc pro tunc incorrectly reflects that this is an adjudication of guilt. In correcting the error referenced in the previous paragraph, another error was made in the trial court's judgment.

    This Court has the authority to reform the judgment to make the record speak the truth when the matter has been called to our attention by any source. French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). In Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd), the court noted that the authority of the appellate court to reform incorrect judgments is not dependent on the request of any party; the appellate court may act sua sponte. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide direct authority for this Court to modify the judgment of the trial court. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2.

    Therefore, we reform the trial court's judgment to reflect a judgment of revocation of community supervision, rather than an adjudication of guilt.

    We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no arguable points of error in this case. (1)

    As reformed, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.



    Josh R. Morriss, III

    Chief Justice



    Date Submitted: March 6, 2007

    Date Decided: March 7, 2007



    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 Hollis in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Hollis wish 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 she 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 that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. 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.