NO. 12-13-00330-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMOTHY DEWAYNE PULLINS, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Timothy Dewayne Pullins appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant’s 

counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In the early morning hours of January 27, 2013, the victim began walking home after a 

night out at a bar in Tyler, Texas. Although she parked her vehicle at the bar, she decided to 

walk home because she was intoxicated. As she walked, a vehicle approached her. A man 

exited the vehicle and robbed her at gunpoint. The victim went to a nearby convenience store 

and called the police. Once an officer arrived, she described the assailant as an African 

American male whose lips were “lighter on the inside [and] progressively got darker toward the 

outside of the lip.” Approximately an hour or two after the robbery, a man later identified as 

Appellant was photographed and videotaped using the victim’s credit cards at a local Walmart, 

McDonald’s, and a gas station. The three stores are in close proximity to each other. 

In response to a local news story releasing Appellant’s photo in connection with the 

robbery, Appellant voluntarily called the police. He left a message with Detective Damon Swan 

of the Tyler Police Department stating that he did not commit the robbery but that he was present 
2

during its commission. When he arrived at the station, Appellant stated, in contrast to his phone 

call, that he was not present during the robbery, and that he purchased the credit cards from a 

third party. Confronted by some of the evidence against him, Appellant changed his version of 

the events two more times. Ultimately, he admitted that he was present during the robbery and 

that he knew the robbery would take place. He denied that he actually committed the robbery. 

Instead, he stated that one of the other two occupants of the car, his nephew Michael Hunter, 

committed the robbery. He denied knowing that Hunter would use a gun, even though he knew 

that Hunter often carried a gun. Based on this information, Detective Swan arrested Appellant.

Appellant was indicted for the first degree felony offense of aggravated robbery.1 

Appellant initially wanted to plead guilty in hopes of a satisfactory plea agreement, but 

ultimately pleaded not guilty. After a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty and 

sentenced him to thirty years of imprisonment. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of 

the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an 

appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. 

In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural 

history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable 

issues for appeal. 

Appellant filed a motion to quash counsel’s Anders brief, along with a pro se brief

contending that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, (2) he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) the trial court improperly admitted extraneous offense 

evidence, and (4) the trial court had an improper judicial bias against him. We have reviewed 

the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011).
3

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Appellant’s motion to quash 

counsel’s Anders brief is overruled.

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this court’s 

judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should 

comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered May 6, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 6, 2015

NO. 12-13-00330-CR

TIMOTHY DEWAYNE PULLINS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0509-13)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things 

affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.