MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 2, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00081-CR
No. 05-15-00126-CR
DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-51945-U, F13-52021-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Fillmore and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
DeJuan Geil Hollis pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated sexual assault of a child (cause
no. 05-15-00081-CR) and indecency with a child (cause no. 05-15-00126-CR). See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. §§ 21.11(a), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). The trial court sentenced
Hollis to five years’ imprisonment on the aggravated sexual assault of a child offense. In the
indecency with a child case, the trial court deferred adjudicating Hollis’s guilt and placed him on
ten years’ community supervision. On appeal, Hollis’s attorney filed a brief in which she
concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the
record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief
to Hollis. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying
duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
Hollis filed a pro se response raising several issues. After reviewing counsel’s brief,
Hollis’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate
court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeals.
Although not arguable issues, we note that both the judgment in cause no. 05-15-00081-
CR and the order deferring adjudication of guilt in cause no. 05-15-00126-CR incorrectly reflect
there was a plea agreement as to punishment, when, in fact, Hollis entered pleas of nolo
contendere with no agreement as to punishment. Accordingly, we modify the sections of the
judgment of conviction and the order deferring adjudication of guilt entitled “terms of plea
bargain” to state “open.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991,
pet. ref'd).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and the order of deferred adjudication.
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
150081F.U05
-2-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-15-00081-CR V. F13-51945-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered October 2, 2015.
-3-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DEJUAN GEIL HOLLIS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-15-00126-CR V. F13-52021-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of deferred adjudication
is MODIFIED as follows:
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order of deferred adjudication.
Judgment entered October 2, 2015.
-4-
DeJuan Geil Hollis v. State
Combined Opinion