Tiffney Lynne McAdoo v. State
This text of Tiffney Lynne McAdoo v. State (Tiffney Lynne McAdoo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00157-CR NO. 02-15-00158-CR
TIFFNEY LYNNE MCADOO APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. 1247940R, 1247941R
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant Tiffney Lynne McAdoo committed two offenses of theft of $1,500
to $20,000 from an elderly person for which she was sentenced in each case to
five years’ confinement, probated for five years. She attempts to appeal from the
judgments revoking her community supervision, sentencing her to thirty months’
confinement in each case, and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. In
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. each case, McAdoo signed a waiver of her right to appeal the revocation of her
community supervision. The trial court’s certifications of her right to appeal state
that each case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of
appeal” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R.
App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
On May 18, 2015, we notified McAdoo that these appeals may be
dismissed based on the trial court’s certifications unless she or any party desiring
to continue the appeals filed a response on or before May 28, 2015, showing
grounds for continuing the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. McAdoo
filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeals.2
In accordance with the trial court’s certifications, we therefore dismiss
these appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
/s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 18, 2015
2 McAdoo complains of the restitution that she was ordered to pay and argues that the trial court “went on record stating [i]t would not seek restitution in these cases.” McAdoo’s waivers, however, state that she waived her right to have a court reporter make a record of the revocation proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tiffney Lynne McAdoo v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffney-lynne-mcadoo-v-state-texapp-2015.