Pullins, Timothy Dewayne, PD-0648-15

Background

In January 2013 a woman was robbed at gunpoint while walking home; the victim later identified characteristics of her assailant. Shortly after, someone used the victim’s credit cards at nearby businesses and video/photo evidence tied those transactions to Timothy Pullins.
Pullins voluntarily contacted police after a news release; his statements changed multiple times before he admitted being present and knowing a robbery would occur but denied personally committing the robbery. He implicated a nephew as the actor with the gun.
Pullins was indicted for aggravated robbery (first-degree felony). He pleaded not guilty, had a bench trial, was convicted, and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues; Pullins filed a pro se brief advancing claims including insufficiency of the evidence, improper admission of extraneous-offense evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and judicial bias.
The Twelfth Court of Appeals granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders, reviewed the record for reversible error, declined to consider Pullins’s pro se arguments, found no reversible error, and affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Pullins’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals should have considered Pullins’s pro‑se brief after counsel filed an Anders brief	The court should exercise discretion to consider his pro‑se issues or appoint new appellate counsel because intermediate courts disagree on whether to accept pro‑se arguments post‑Anders	After counsel filed an Anders brief, Pullins had no right to hybrid representation; the court properly reviewed the record for reversible error under Anders	Court declined to consider pro‑se brief but reviewed record for reversible error and affirmed; denied relief on discretionary review request in the opinion below
Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated robbery	Evidence was legally insufficient to show Pullins was criminally responsible for aggravated robbery	Video/transactions with victim’s cards, eyewitness description, Pullins’s admissions (present and aware of robbery) supply circumstantial proof of culpability	Court found no reversible error; held the record supported the conviction (sufficient evidence)
Admission of non‑contextual extraneous‑offense evidence (TEX. R. EVID. 404(b)) and preservation	Evidence of prior credit‑card offense was improperly admitted and not contextually necessary; trial counsel’s failure to object should not forfeit review or shows IAC	No contemporaneous objection was made at trial, so the claim was not preserved for appeal; court reviewed for reversible error under Anders	Court treated the point as not preserved and found no reversible error; did not grant relief on the extraneous‑offense claim
Whether Pullins received effective assistance of counsel at trial	Trial counsel failed to investigate, failed to object to inadmissible evidence, failed to present favorable witnesses, and otherwise performed deficiently under Strickland	The appellate record does not show reversible IAC; some IAC claims are better raised in habeas where the record can be developed; appellate counsel concluded appeal frivolous	Court agreed with Anders counsel that appeal lacked non‑frivolous issues; denied IAC relief on direct appeal and affirmed judgment

Key Cases Cited

Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (limits extraneous‑offense evidence except for context/res gestae)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court may review record for reversible error when Anders brief filed)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when appointed counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discusses appointment/consideration of pro‑se issues in certain circumstances)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedural guidance for Anders briefs and counsel withdrawal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (procedural authority governing Anders‑type appellate filings)