The State Waives Oral Argument 

NOS. 05-14-01485-CR & 05-14-01486-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT DALLAS 

 

CHARDONDRA JONES, 

APPELLANT 

vs. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLEE 

 

On appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas

Cause Nos. F10-55473-L & F10-55726-L 

 

STATE’S BRIEF

 

 Counsel of Record:

SUSAN HAWK KAREN R. WISE 

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS STATE BAR NO. 21810200 

 FRANK CROWLEY COURTS BUILDING 

 133 N. RIVERFRONT BLVD., LB-19

 DALLAS, TEXAS 75207-4399 

 (214) 653-3637 

 karen.wise@dallascounty.org

Attorneys for the State of Texas

ACCEPTED

05-14-01485-CR

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

3/25/2015 11:23:31 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 3/25/2015 11:23:31 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................................................................... 2

ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 2

RESPONSE TO POINT 1.............................................................................................. 2

THE JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING GUILT IN CAUSE NO. F10-55473-

L SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE 

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

APPELLANT VIOLATED. 

RESPONSE TO POINT 2.............................................................................................. 2

THE JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING GUILT IN CAUSE NO. F10-55726-

L SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE 

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

APPELLANT VIOLATED. 

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD-COUNT COMPLIANCE........................... 5
iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Asberry v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) ................................................... 4

French v. State, 

830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)........................................................................ 4

Rules

Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b)........................................................................................................ 4
1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

The State of Texas submits this brief in reply to the brief of Appellant.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In Cause No. F10-55473-L, Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon. (CR1: 23).1 On August 25, 2010, the trial court 

found that the evidence substantiated Appellant’s guilt, but deferred adjudication, 

placed Appellant on community supervision for 6 years, and assessed a fine of 

$2500. (CR1: 23). On October 15, 2014, the court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt 

and set punishment at 8 years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, Institutional Division. (CR1: 77). The court certified that Appellant has 

the right to appeal. (CR1: 82). Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed. 

(CR1: 88).

In Cause No. F10-55726-L, Appellant entered a guilty plea to harassment of 

a public servant. (CR2: 19). On August 25, 2010, the trial court found that the 

evidence substantiated Appellant’s guilt, but deferred adjudication and placed 

Appellant on community supervision for 6 years. (CR2: 19). 

 

1

The State will refer to the clerk’s record in Cause No. F10-55473-L as CR1, the clerk’s record 

in Cause No. F10-55726-L as CR2, and the supplemental clerk’s record in Cause No. F10-

55726-L as CR3.
2

On October 15, 2014, the court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt and set 

punishment at 8 years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division. (CR2: 77). The court certified that Appellant has the right 

to appeal. (CR2: 74). Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed. (CR2: 83).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The State agrees that the Judgments Adjudicating Guilt in Appellant’s cases 

should be reformed to accurately reflect the conditions of community supervision 

that the trial court found Appellant had violated. 

ARGUMENT

RESPONSE TO POINT 1

THE JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING GUILT IN CAUSE NO.

F10-55473-L SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ACCURATELY 

REFLECT THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION APPELLANT VIOLATED.

RESPONSE TO POINT 2

THE JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING GUILT IN CAUSE NO. 

F10-55726-L SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ACCURATELY 

REFLECT THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION APPELLANT VIOLATED.

In Points 1 and 2, Appellant claims that the Judgments Adjudicating Guilt in 

her cases on appeal should be reformed to accurately reflect the conditions of 
3

community supervision she was found to have violated. The State agrees that the 

Judgments Adjudicating Guilt should be modified as requested.

The State’s Amended Motions to Revoke Probation or Proceed with an 

Adjudication of Guilt, which were filed August 12, 2014, alleged that Appellant 

violated conditions (a) (committing a new offense), (j) (paying community 

supervision fees), (k) (paying Crime Stoppers fee), (l) (completing community 

service hours), and (n) (paying urinalysis fee). (CR1: 70-71; CR3: 4-5). During 

the adjudication hearing, the State noted that it was abandoning the financial 

allegations, which would be conditions (j), (k), and (n). (RR3: 5). Appellant’s 

open plea documents indicated that she would enter a plea of true to violations of 

conditions (a) and (l). (CR1: 76; CR2: 76). At the hearing, Appellant entered a 

plea of true to “the remaining allegations” in the State’s motion to adjudicate, 

which would be conditions (a) and (l). (RR3: 5). The court stated, “Pursuant to 

those pleas, in the revocation cases, the Court’s going to find you guilty, as 

indicted.” (RR3: 20). Thus, the court found that Appellant violated conditions (a) 

and (l), which were the only allegations to which Appellant pled true and the only 

allegations remaining after the State abandoned the financial allegations.

The Judgments Adjudicating Guilt state that Appellant “violated the terms 

and conditions of community supervision as set out in the State’s ORIGINAL 

Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as follows: See attached Motion to Adjudicate Guilt.” 
4

(CR1: 78; CR2: 78). The State’s earlier motions to revoke probation, filed 

4/1/2014, are attached to, and thus referenced in, the Judgments Adjudicating 

Guilt. (CR1: 77-80; CR2: 77-80). Thus, the Judgments Adjudicating Guilt 

reference and attach the wrong Motions to Adjudicate and imply that all conditions 

in the Motions were violated.

This Court has the authority to modify or reform a judgment to make the 

record speak the truth when the matter has been called to its attention. Tex. R. 

App. P. 43.2(b); French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); 

Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 531 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). This 

Court should therefore modify the judgments in the instant cases to reflect that 

Appellant violated conditions (a) and (l) of each “AMENDED Motion to 

Adjudicate Guilt” and order that the Amended Motions to Adjudicate Guilt should 

be attached to the Judgments Adjudicating Guilt. The judgments should then be 

affirmed as modified.
5

PRAYER

The State prays that this Honorable Court will modify the judgments as 

requested and then affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________

SUSAN HAWK KAREN R. WISE

Criminal District Attorney Assistant District Attorney

Dallas County, Texas State Bar No. 21810200

Frank Crowley Courts Building

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19

Dallas, Texas 75207-4399

(214) 653-3637

(214) 653-3643 fax

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD-COUNT COMPLIANCE 

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing brief was served on 

Kathleen A. Walsh, attorney for Appellant, Dallas County Public Defender’s 

Office, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB 2, Dallas, Texas 75207-4399, via hand 

delivery, and by sending an electronic communication through eFileTexas.gov to 

kathleen.walsh@dallascounty.org, on March 25, 2015. I further certify that this 

document contains 1,078 words, inclusive of all contents.

_________________________

KAREN R. WISE