Lisa Ann Gordon v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00034-CR

LISA ANN GORDON, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2531078

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lisa Ann Gordon entered an open plea of guilty to the third-degree felony of exploitation of a disabled person. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.53(c). Gordon was advised at the time of her open plea that the punishment range for her offense “could be some kind of probation all the way up to ten years in the penitentiary.” At the punishment hearing, the trial court found Gordon guilty of the third-degree felony offense of exploitation of a disabled person and sentenced her to five years’ incarceration. Gordon appeals.

Gordon’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Since appellate counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellate counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Appellate counsel certified that copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the record were delivered to Gordon. Gordon was informed of her rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated July 20, 2026, this Court informed Gordon that the case would be set for submission on August 10. We received neither a pro se response from

3

Gordon nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: August 10, 2026 Date Decided: August 24, 2026

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.