In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00191-CR

 

ASHLEY ELAINE BREWER, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 081305-C-CR, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

March 19, 2024 

OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as 

sweet.”1 Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Ashley Elaine Brewer, was convicted 

by a jury of theft of property valued at less than $2,500, enhanced by two prior theft 

convictions.

2

 On the jury’s recommendation of community supervision, the sentence was 

1 Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242, 253–54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting SHAKESPEARE, ROMEO 

AND JULIET, Act II, Scene II). 

2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D).
2

suspended for two years and $1,250 of a $2,500 fine was also suspended. By a sole 

issue, Appellant maintains the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction where the 

indictment and jury charge incorrectly named the complainant which could implicate 

double jeopardy in the future. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged with theft of a python from a pet store. The complainant, 

who managed the store, Javier Jimenez, was named “Jimenez Javier” in the indictment 

and jury charge.3 Throughout trial, however, he was referred to as Javier Jimenez.

During cross-examination, he testified he has never used “Jimenez Javier” as an alias.

4

 

After the State presented its case-in-chief, the defense moved for a directed verdict 

arguing the State had failed to prove the identity of the owner of the python due to the 

manager’s first and last names being transposed in the indictment. The trial court denied 

the motion.

Appellant was the only witness for the defense. The jury found her guilty as 

charged. This appeal followed in which she asserts the evidence is insufficient to sustain 

her conviction due to the incorrect name of the complainant in the indictment and jury 

charge.

3

It is well settled that when property referred to in a charging instrument belongs to a corporation, 

it is a better pleading practice to allege ownership in a natural person acting for the corporation. TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 28.01.

4 Perhaps a simple comma between the last and first name would have obscured the mistake.
3

STANDARD OF REVIEW—SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

The only standard a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the 

evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense the State is required 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). See Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 

854, 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010). We consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and 

determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any 

rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt. Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). In evaluating 

the sufficiency of the evidence, we compare the elements of the offense as defined by a 

hypothetically correct jury charge to the evidence adduced at trial. Thomas v. State, 444 

S.W.3d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1997)).

ANALYSIS

Appellant contends the misidentification of the complainant in the indictment and 

jury charge are not idem sonans and could subject her to double jeopardy. We disagree.

The doctrine of idem sonans permits the misspelling of a name in legal documents 

if the attentive listener would find difficulty distinguishing the misspelling from the proper 

spelling when pronounced. Martin v. State, 541 S.W.2d 605, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). 

Under the doctrine, absolute accuracy in the spelling of a name is not required. Dingler 

v. State, 705 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
4

“A variance occurs when there is a discrepancy between the allegations in the 

indictment and the proof offered at trial.”5 Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242, 244 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011).

6

 It is fatal only if it is material and prejudices the defendant’s substantial 

rights by either failing to give notice of the charges or by allowing a second prosecution 

for the same offense.

7

 Id. at 248; Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2001). A material variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial 

renders the evidence insufficient. Gollihar, 46 S.W.3d at 257.

The doctrine of idem sonans focuses on pronunciation rather than spelling to 

determine whether a variance is material. Farris v. State, 819 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1990), overruled on other grounds, Riley v. State, 889 S.W.2d 290, 301 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1993) (op. on reh’g). In the underlying case, the complainant’s name was not 

misspelled but his first and last names were transposed. We concede the complainant’s 

proper name and the name alleged in the indictment do not sound alike and agree with 

Appellant that the names are not idem sonans. 

Despite this Court’s exhaustive search, no case involving transposed names was 

found. Nevertheless, the State’s mistake did not result in prejudice to Appellant’s 

substantial rights. Post Byrd, the Court of Criminal Appeals has noted the “bottom line” 

5 The State argues there was no variance between the owner alleged and the evidence presented 

but then concludes that any “variance” did not prejudice Appellant. Considering the complainant’s first and 

last names were transposed, we review the mistake to analyze whether the variance was material.

6

In Byrd, the defendant was indicted for theft from Mike Morales but at trial, his name was never 

mentioned or connected to the actual owner—Wal-mart. No one noticed the discrepancy throughout trial. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals held the State failed to prove Mike Morales had any ownership interest in 

the property, reversed the court of appeals’ holding that the variance was immaterial, and rendered a 

judgment of acquittal.

7 Appellant acknowledges notice of the charges against her is not an issue.
5

in a sufficiency review tolerates variances “as long as they are not so great that the proof 

at trial ‘shows an entirely different offense’ than what was alleged in the charging 

instrument.” See Ramjattansigngh v. State, 548 S.W.3d 540, 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). 

See also Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (tolerating 

variance in pleading and proof for a non-statutory allegation).

In the underlying case, although the complainant’s first and last names in the 

indictment were transposed, the State established during the complainant’s testimony 

that he was the manager of the entity from which Appellant stole the python. The State 

alleged Appellant committed theft and the evidence proved that theft. Measuring the 

evidence based on a hypothetically correct jury charge, the State proved beyond a 

reasonable doubt the person alleged in the indictment, i.e., “Jimenez Javier,” was the 

“owner” for purposes of the theft statute.

8

 See Byrd, 336 S.W.3d at 244. The variance 

was not so great as to show an entirely different theft was committed. Thus, we conclude 

the variance was not material.9 See id. at 248. 

Appellant also argues the State failed to prove an element of theft—the rightful 

owner of the stolen property. Although Byrd clarified that the name of the owner is not a 

“substantive element of theft,” despite any discrepancies, the State must still prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the person alleged in the indictment is the same person 

shown by the evidence. Id. at 252–53. In the underlying case, although the complainant 

8

“Owner” is defined as a person who has a greater right to possession of the property than the 

actor. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(35)(A).

9 Although we find the variance was not material, we note the State had at least two opportunities 

during trial to amend the indictment but failed to do so. See Sanchez v. State, No. 07-02-00287-CR, 2004 

Tex. App. LEXIS 4440, at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 17, 2004, no pet.) (noting there was no risk of double 

jeopardy given the State’s amendment of the indictment to correct a misspelling).
6

testified he had never been known as “Jimenez Javier,” the evidence established he was 

the “owner” of the pet store from which Appellant stole the python. 

As to Appellant’s double jeopardy argument, jeopardy attached, and the State 

proved its case. The evidence showed “Jimenez Javier” and “Javier Jimenez” are not 

different persons. Because the evidence established the owner of the python was the 

same person as alleged in the indictment, any attempt to reindict Appellant for a theft 

from “Javier Jimenez” would appear vindictive and be barred by double jeopardy. 

Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Alex Yarbrough

 Justice

Publish.