Lanae Tipton v. The State of Texas Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00431-CR Lanae Tipton, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. FR82063, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Lane Tipton was charged with the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 29.02-.03. Tipton was found guilty by a jury of the charged offense and was sentenced to nineteen years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Tipton appeals the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief; provided appellant with a complete copy of the appellate record; and notified appellant of her deadline to file a pro se brief, along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith Affirmed Filed: April 21, 2022 Do Not Publish 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
