Holly Ellen Brady v. State

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Do Not Publish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