Lindzey Jane Gulliver v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-24-00358-CR, 13-24-00359-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

LINDZEY JANE GULLIVER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT
OF LAVACA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

Appellant Lindzey Jane Gulliver pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of property

with a value of $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, each a state-jail felony. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4).1 The trial court deferred appellant’s adjudication and

1 The first indictment (trial court cause number 2021-06-10359CR, appellate cause number 13-24-
placed her on community supervision for four years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

42A.101(a). The State filed motions to adjudicate in 2022, alleging that appellant violated

various terms and conditions of her community supervision. Appellant stipulated and

conceded to an allegation that she tested positive for methamphetamines on June 2,

2023. The trial court granted the State’s motions, adjudicated appellant guilty of both

offenses, and sentenced her in each case to two years in state jail, with the sentences to

run concurrently. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed briefs in both

cause numbers stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEFS

Counsel states in his briefs that he has diligently reviewed the entire record in both

cases and that “the appeal in this cause has no non-frivolous basis reflected in the record

and thus is without merit.” See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as they present a

thorough, professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for

advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance

‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to

the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

00358-CR) alleged that appellant committed six different thefts in 2020 as part of one scheme or course of
continuing conduct, and it aggregated the value of the property appropriated in each of the alleged thefts.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.09. The second indictment (trial court cause number 2021-06-10360CR,
appellate cause number 13-24-00359-CR) alleged that appellant committed one theft in 2017.

2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that he has:

(1) notified appellant that he has filed Anders briefs and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided

appellant with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of her rights to file a pro

se response,2 to review the record prior to filing that response, and to seek discretionary

review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form

motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature

and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. In this case, appellant filed neither a timely motion seeking

pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. Appellant

did not file a pro se response.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs in both cause

numbers, and we have found no arguable reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in

the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

2 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the

rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court
those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed

a motion to withdraw in each appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must

withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed

attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate

court that the appeal is frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motions to withdraw.

Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its

accompanying judgments to appellant, and to advise her of her right to file a petition for

discretionary review, within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion.3 See TEX.

R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206

S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of May, 2025.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review 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 must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this
Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of
Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

4