Jessica Lynn Vaughn v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00321-CR

JESSICA LYNN VAUGHN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A22207-2210, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding

April 2, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

On June 14, 2024, Appellant, Jessica Lynn Vaughn, entered a guilty plea to the

charge of forgery of a financial instrument.1 She was sentenced to fifteen months’

incarceration, but this sentence was probated and the trial court placed her on community

supervision for a period of four years. After Appellant tested positive for

methamphetamine multiple times, admitted to using methamphetamine multiple times,

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21(b), (d).
failed to complete community service as ordered, and was terminated from the Hale

County Drug Court Program, the State moved to revoke her community supervision. After

holding a hearing, the trial court did revoke Appellant’s community supervision and

sentenced her to serve fifteen months’ incarceration in the State Jail Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely appealed from the judgment revoking

her community supervision. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion

to withdraw supported by an Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion, reform the

judgment, and affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified her of the motion to withdraw; provided her with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and the appellate record; and informed her of her right to file a pro se

response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying

appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an

Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of her right to file a pro se

response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has

not filed a brief.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2
By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of

Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

Counsel does correctly indicate that the judgment of revocation contains an error.

The judgment states that Appellant pleaded “true” to the motion to revoke. However, the

record reflects that Appellant pleaded “not true” to the motion. We are authorized to

reform judgments sua sponte to make the record speak the truth. “The Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure give us authority to reform judgments and correct typographical

errors to make the record speak the truth.” Torres v. State, No. 07-13-00179-CR, 2014

Tex. App. LEXIS 2664, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 and French v. State, 830

S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc)). Consequently, we reform the

judgment to correctly indicate that Appellant pleaded “not true” to the motion to revoke

her community supervision.

3
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, reform the judgment to reflect

that Appellant pleaded “not true” to the motion to revoke, and affirm the trial court’s

judgment as reformed.3

Judy C. Parker
Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

4