In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00052-CR
___________________________
JORDAN TAYLOR HOLLAND, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 90th District Court
Young County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11134
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jordan Taylor Holland appeals from his conviction and sentence for
third-degree felony assault, enhanced to a second-degree felony. Because we agree
with Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist, we affirm.
Appellant pled guilty without a plea bargain to the third-degree felony of
assault of a family member by impeding breath or circulation. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.003 (including parents
of the same child in definition of family). The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty
plea after admonishing him. Appellant also pled true to an enhancement allegation,
which increased the punishment range for the offense to a second-degree felony. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a). A jury heard punishment evidence, most of which
concerned the circumstances of the charged offense. The jury assessed Appellant’s
punishment at fifteen years’ confinement and a $3,500 fine; it also found that
Appellant had used his hands as a deadly weapon. The trial judge sentenced Appellant
in accordance with the jury’s verdict, and Appellant appealed.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
brief complying with Anders v. California, representing that there is nothing in the
record that might arguably support this appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no
2
arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Appellant had the opportunity to file a pro se response
to the Anders brief but did not do so; likewise, the State did not file a brief.
After an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the
ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must
independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the
record before us that arguably might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684,
685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: July 8, 2021
3