## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No

. 02

- 20

- 00115

- CR

______________ ________ _____

On Appeal from Criminal Distri ct C ourt No. 4 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1532863D
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memo randum Opinion 

### N ICOLETTE 

### L. C OLLINS 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nicol et t e Collins appeals her conviction for passing a forged financial
in strument . We affirm. In 2018, Collins was in dict ed on nine counts

. Pursuant to a plea agreement , the
State waived eight of the counts and procee ded o nly on Count Two , passing a forge d
fi nancial instrument , to which Collins agreed to plead guilt y . See Tex. Pen al Code
Ann. § 32.21 (a)(1) (A) (iii) , (a)(1) ( B ) , (b)

. With a n en hanc em ent for her prio r felony offenses, the forgery count was punisha ble as a felony of the third degree for which
she faced pu nishment of two to ten years ’ confinemen t
. See id. § § 12. 34 (a) , . 425 (a ). As part of the plea p ap erwork , Collins signed w hat w as tit l e d a “ Judi cial Confession

. ”
The trial court assessed punishment at two and a half years ’ confin ement. On appeal, C ollins contend s that t he evide nc e is ins ufficient to support he r

co nviction und er Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Proc edure

. Article 1.15 requires the State to introduce sufficient evidence into the re cord to support a guilty pl ea. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1

. 15. “ Article 1.15
constitutes an additional procedural safeguard required by the State of Texas but not by fe deral constitutional law. ” Menefee v. State , 28 7 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (cleaned up). “ No tr ial co urt is authorized to rend e r a con viction in a felony case, consistent with Article 1.15, based upon a plea of guilty without sufficient
evid enc e to support the same.” Id. (clean ed up). “ E vi dence offer ed in support of a
gu ilty plea ma y take many for ms , ” on e of which is a written , sworn judicial confession3 “ specifically admitting his culpability or at least a cknowledging generally that the
all egations against him are in fact true and correct

. ” Id. A ju dicial confession is
suff icient i f it contains t he defendant ’s admission that the allegations in the indictment
are true and correct or that s he committed the offense as alle ged in the indictmen t. Potts v. State , 571 S.W.2d 180, 18 2 (Tex. C rim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) ; Wilson v. State , No s . 2

- 03

- 255

- CR through 2

- 03

- 25 7

- CR , 2004 WL 362341, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 26, 20 04, pet. ref’ d) (pe r curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication )

. Just s uch a judicial confession a ppears in the clerk ’ s record. In the confessio n , Collin s swore that sh e had read the indi ctment, that she ha d c ommitted each and every act alleged therein except those acts waived by the S tate, that she was guilty of
th e charged of fens e , and that all other affirmati ve findings made by the cou r t pursua nt

to the pl ea a greement were true and correct
. T he contents of the cler k ’ s record , though, are not evidence unless the trial court takes judicial notice of them or they are offered into evidence. McDougal v. State , 105 S.W.3d 119, 12 0

– 21 (Tex. App.

— F ort Wort h 2003, pet. ref’d)

. N othing before us indicates that the trial court took judicial notice of the contents of the clerk ’ s record. See i d. at 121.
Of course , the likely reason that we lack any such indication is that Collins has
f

ailed to provide this court a report er ’ s re c ord of the plea proceedi ngs. See id. A n appellant in a crimina l case must bri ng forth a complete record in support of her4 complaint and bears the bu rden of demonstrating that the State failed to satisfy the requirements o f A rticle 1.15. Id

. “ A criminal def endant may not waive the making of a record and then, on appeal, rely on the absence of evidence to support reversal of
his co nviction. ” Id. “ [T ] his court is not obligated to review a nonexistent record, especially wh en the onl y challenge is to the S tate ’ s adequate compliance with article
1.15. ” Id. Appellant has failed to provide a sufficient record to support her complaint.
We therefore overru le her sole point on appeal and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.
P er Cu riam
Do N ot Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: April 8, 2021