<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN></CENTER>
</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-95-00425-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>William Earl Hollis, Appellant</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>The State of Texas, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. B-94-0594-S, HONORABLE JOHN E. SUTTON, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG>PER CURIAM</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	A jury found appellant guilty of retaliation.  The jury assessed punishment,
enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for seventy-five years.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of <EM>Anders v. California</EM>,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the
appeal.  <EM>See also</EM> <EM>Penson v. Ohio</EM>, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); <EM>Gainous v. State</EM>, 436  S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969); <EM>Jackson v. State</EM>, 485  S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); <EM>Currie v. State</EM>,
516  S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); <EM>High v. State</EM>, 573  S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel's brief would
serve no beneficial purpose.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	The judgment of conviction is affirmed.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Affirmed</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Filed:   May 29, 1996</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
