Vanessa Lorrien Hollowood v. The State of Texas Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-17-00188-CR VANESSA LORRIEN HOLLOWOOD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-1075-C2 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2011, Vanessa Lorrien Hollowood, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to injury to a child1 and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six years. In 2017, the State moved to proceed to an adjudication of her guilt, alleging several distinct violations of the terms and conditions of Hollowood’s community supervision. Hollowood pled true to several of the State’s allegations and, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment and imposed a $750.00 fine. Hollowood appeals.2 Hollowood’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which states that he has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2017). 2 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We follow the precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 By letter dated November 16, 2017, counsel mailed to Hollowood copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel further notified Hollowood, in a letter dated January 22, 2018, of her right to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated January 23, 2018, this Court informed Hollowood that any pro se response was due on or before February 23, 2018. On April 17, 2018, this Court further informed Hollowood that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on May 8, 2018. We received neither a pro se response from Hollowood nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. 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 judgment of the trial court.3 Ralph K. Burgess Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: May 8, 2018 May 9, 2018 Do Not Publish 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
