NUMBERS 13-26-00159-CR, 13-26-00198-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
CALLIE JEAN LONSFORD, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT
OF HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron
During a roughly six-month period in 2019, appellant Callie Jean Lonsford was
twice arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated with two previous convictions, a
third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2). Appellant reached a
plea agreement with the State in both cases: in exchange for her guilty pleas, she was sentenced to ten-year prison terms, with each sentence probated for ten years.
Several years later, the State moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision
in each case, alleging that she violated the same terms of supervision in both. The
motions were heard together, and appellant pleaded “true” to all but one of the allegations.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found each allegation “true,” revoked
appellant’s community supervision in both cases, and sentenced her to concurrent prison
terms of ten years. See id. § 12.34(a).
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in each appeal
stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 2
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw in each appeal, stating that his review of the
appellate records in both cases yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an
appeal could be predicated. See id. Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as
they present a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds
1 Appellate cause number 13-26-00159-CR concerns trial court cause number CR14473, and appellate cause number 13-26-00198-CR concerns trial court cause number CR14580.
2
These appeals were transferred to us from the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 22.220(a) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts), 73.001 (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to another at any time that there is “good cause” for the transfer). We are bound by the transferring court’s precedent to the extent that it differs from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
to advance on either appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 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.” (citing Hawkins v.
State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.)));
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no
reversible error in either of the trial court’s judgments. For each case, appellant’s counsel
also informed this Court in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an
Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both
pleadings; (3) informed appellant of her right to file a pro se response, to review the record
prior to filing the 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;
see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. In both cases, appellant filed neither a
timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for an extension
of time to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se response in either case.
3
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs, and we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either case. See 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 that it considered the issues raised in the briefs 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 511.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel in both cases. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within
five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and the Court’s judgments to appellant and to advise her of her right to file a
petition for discretionary review in both cases. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re
3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these
cases 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 or timely motion for en banc reconsideration 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 id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
JENNY CRON
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
13th day of August, 2026.
5