Tiffany Elaine Lage v. The State of TexasAppeal from 355th District Court of Hood County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Opinion filed June 13, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-13-00047-CR __________ TIFFANY ELAINE LAGE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR12049 MEMORANDUM OPINION Tiffany Elaine Lage pleaded guilty in March 2012 to the offense of abandoning or endangering a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.041 (West 2011). In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed her punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twenty-four months. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for a term of five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision, alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of Appellant s community supervision. The trial court considered the motion at a hearing conducted on December 4, 2012. Appellant pleaded [n]ot true to all of the alleged violations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found most of the alleged violations to be true, revoked Appellant s community supervision, and assessed her punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twenty months. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel s brief. 2 We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ( In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68. ). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM June 13, 2013 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J. 3

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.