Appeals Court Upholds 40-Year Sentence for Convicted Sex Offender Howard Holland

Appeals Court Upholds 40-Year Sentence for Convicted Sex Offender Howard Holland

Dallas, Texas — In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas has dismissed the appeal of Howard Holland, affirming his forty-year prison sentence for aggravated sexual assault. This decision, issued under case number 05-25-00892-CR, reinforces the judgment ...

Appeals Court Upholds 40-Year Sentence for Convicted Sex Offender Howard Holland

Dallas, Texas — In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas has dismissed the appeal of Howard Holland, affirming his forty-year prison sentence for aggravated sexual assault. This decision, issued under case number 05-25-00892-CR, reinforces the judgment originally handed down by the 422nd Judicial District Court in Kaufman County in 2014.

Case Background

On January 3, 2014, Holland entered a guilty plea to charges of aggravated sexual assault as part of a plea bargain agreement, which resulted in a forty-year sentence. Nearly eleven years later, on February 7, 2025, Holland filed a motion for a new trial, followed by a notice of appeal on July 15, 2025.

Reasons for Appeal Dismissal

According to Texas law, there are strict time limits for filing appeals:

  • A notice of appeal must be submitted within 30 days of sentencing.

  • If a motion for new trial is properly filed within the designated time, the deadline extends to 90 days.

In Holland's case, his motion for a new trial was due by February 2, 2014, but he failed to file it until well over a decade later. This significant delay rendered both his motion and subsequent notice of appeal untimely.

The court emphasized that timely filing is a jurisdictional requirement; without it, the appellate court lacks the authority to hear the case. Citing precedents such as Ex parte Castillo and Slaton v. State, the justices reiterated that late filings necessitate dismissal.

Final Ruling

Ultimately, due to the untimeliness of Holland's filings, the Court of Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction and officially dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, Holland's forty-year sentence remains unchanged.

Advertisement
Advertisement
×