Court Opinion

ID: 9956866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 06:12:20.069046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:56.707774
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed March 27, 2024

                                            S   In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                          Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                      No. 05-23-00196-CR
                                      No. 05-23-00197-CR

                             JAYLA SHERLEY, Appellant
                                        V.
                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
                                Dallas County, Texas
                  Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-00690-Q, F19-00691-Q

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before Justices Garcia, Breedlove, and Kennedy
                                 Opinion by Justice Garcia
        Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to manslaughter and aggravated

assault after she caused a fatal accident driving the wrong way down an interstate

into oncoming traffic.1 After hearing the evidence, the trial court found appellant

guilty of both offenses and sentenced her to concurrent twelve year terms of

imprisonment. In four issues on appeal, appellant argues: (i) the indictment was

    1
        An “open plea” signifies that the defendant pleaded guilty without an agreement about the precise
punishment he will receive. See Harper v. State, 567 S.W.3d 450, 455 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no
pet.); State v. Moore, 240 S.W.3d 248, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (plea is open as to sentencing).
defective for failing to apprise her of the circumstances indicating she drove her

vehicle in a reckless manner, (ii) the evidence is insufficient to support her

conviction for manslaughter using a deadly weapon, (iii) defense counsel was

ineffective, and (iv) the absence of a written waiver of jury trial constitutes reversible

error. Concluding appellant’s arguments are without merit, we affirm the trial court’s

judgments.

                                   I. BACKGROUND

      On the night in question, surveillance footage from The Texas Rose, a bar,

shows appellant entering the parking lot at around 1:00 a.m. About an hour and a

half later, she emerges from the car and attempts to open the door to the bar. The

door was locked, and appellant urinated on the ground.

      Appellant returned to her car, where she remained for approximately an hour

and a half. Then, instead of backing out of her parking spot, appellant pulled forward

onto the grass and turned left, orienting her car to drive south along the bar-side bank

of a ditch. Appellant pulled directly in front of another occupied car, then pulled

back into the concrete parking lot and whipped around to the entrance of the parking

lot. From there, she turned left in front of an oncoming eighteen-wheeler and

proceeded south on the northbound frontage road.

      Appellant was driving the wrong way on Interstate 45 when she hit a car

driven by M.A. head-on. A.C., a passenger in M.A.’s car, was killed. M.A. survived,

but suffered serious injuries, including head trauma, fractures under his eye and in

                                          –2–
his right elbow, both hips, pelvis and lower back. M.A.’s mother did not recognize

him in the emergency room, and doctors were concerned that he would be in a

vegetative state or unable to walk.

      Appellant also sustained serious injuries. At the hospital, she told the nurse

she had consumed three shots of tequila. Appellant’s blood sample, taken by the

hospital about an hour after the crash, showed an alcohol concentration of .105g/dL.

Another blood sample drawn pursuant to a search warrant after noon on the day of

the 4:00 a.m. accident did not show the presence of alcohol.

      Appellant was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault. She

pleaded guilty to both charges without the benefit of a punishment agreement and

her judicial confessions were admitted into evidence. The State also introduced, and

the court admitted, appellant’s hospital records, photographs of the mangled vehicles

after the accident, surveillance footage from the bar parking lot, A.C.’s autopsy

report, and x-rays and photographs of M.A.’s injuries. M.A. and his mother testified

about his injuries and the impact the accident had on his physical and mental health.

A.C.’s mother also testified. A.C. was nineteen years old when he died in the

accident.

      Appellant testified in her own defense, and her trial counsel argued that she

should be given probation. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty pleas and

found her guilty in each case. The court found that appellant used her vehicle as a

                                        –3–
deadly weapon in the manslaughter case and assessed punishment at twelve years in

prison for each offense (to be served concurrently). This timely appeal followed.

                                  II. ANALYSIS

A.    The Indictment

      Appellant’s first issue argues the manslaughter indictment is defective

because it fails to specifically allege the circumstances under which appellant acted

recklessly. This issue has not been preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.

      “If a defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or

substance in the indictment before the date on which trial on the merits begins, he

waives the right to object and may not raise an objection on appeal or in any other

postconviction proceeding.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14(b); Williams v.

State, –S.W.3d –, No. PD-0099-23, 2024 WL 104220, at * (Tex. Crim. App. Jan.

10, 2024); Reydlom v. State, No. 05-19-01486-CR, 2020 WL 7693179, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Dec. 28, 2020, not pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

      There was no such objection here. Appellant did not object to the indictment

before she entered her guilty plea. And in the plea paperwork she signed after

pleading guilty, she affirmatively waived her right to complain about defects in the

indictment.

                                        –4–
        Moreover, even if the issue had been preserved, the manslaughter indictment

is not defective.2 Article 21.15 requires that The State allege acts of recklessness or

criminal negligence with specificity. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 21.25.

The indictment alleged that appellant committed the offense by “driving a motor

vehicle into oncoming traffic and in the wrong direction on an interstate therefore

striking the motor vehicle occupied by” the victim. Appellant’s argument that the

State needed to additionally allege “something about the setting or circumstances”

that constitutes recklessness is not persuasive. When the alleged act is inherently

reckless, the indictment satisfies article 21.15 if it merely alleges the act was

committed. See Tata v. State, 446 S.W.3d 456, 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2014, pet. ref’d); Soto v. State, No. 04-17-00491-CR, 2018 WL 2323637, at *9 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio May 23, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). The indictment was sufficient to give notice of the acts relied on to

constitute recklessness. See Townsley v. State, 538 S.W.2d 411, 412–413 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1976); Goodrich v. State, 156 S.W.3d 141, 145 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2005, pet. ref’d); Lawson v. State, No. 09-16-00395-CR, 2017 WL 4414178, at * 4

    2
      Appellant’s argument that that the aggravated assault indictment is defective, had it been preserved,
is similarly misplaced. That indictment alleged that appellant acted “intentionally, knowingly, and
recklessly.” Therefore, article 21.15 did not apply. See State v. Casterena, 486 S.W.3d 630, 635 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.). When the State alleges that a defendant acts knowingly or intentionally
along with recklessness, it not necessary for the State to allege the reckless acts with specificity. See
Crawford v. State, 646 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. Crim. App.1983); Allen v. State, No. 05-16-00594-CR, 2017
WL 2645033, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 20, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
                                                   –5–
(Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 14, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). Appellant’s first issue is resolved against her.

B.    Sufficiency of the Evidence

      Appellant’s second issue argues the evidence is “legally and factually”

insufficient in the manslaughter case to show that she was “too drunk to control her

vehicle or any other evidence to show she intended or used her vehicle in a manner

that caused the individual’s death.” She further argues the aggravated assault case

evidence was insufficient to show the victim suffered serious bodily injury. Both

arguments lack merit.

      The factual sufficiency standard is no longer applicable in criminal cases. See

Villatoro v. State, No. 05-18-00639-CR, 2019 WL 3940971, at *7 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Aug. 21, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). And

when a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the Jackson v. Virginia

sufficiency standard is not applicable. Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2009); Cloniger v. State, No. 05-15-01234-CR, 2017 WL 908788, at *2,

n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 8, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). Instead, the supporting evidence must simply embrace every essential

element of the offense charged. Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996).

      Appellant’s argument ignores that she pleaded guilty and judicially confessed

to both charges. The entry of a valid guilty plea “has the effect of admitting all

                                          –6–
material facts alleged in the formal criminal charge.” Ex parte Williams, 703 S.W.2d

674, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Once a defendant enters a valid guilty plea, the

state is no longer constitutionally required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. See Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); McGill

v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.).

      Rather, article 1.15 requires substantiation of the plea. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 1.15. To substantiate a guilty plea, there must be evidence “in addition to, and

independent of, the plea itself to establish the defendant’s guilt.” Menefee, 287

S.W.3d at 14; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.15. A stipulation of evidence or

judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty

plea so long as it establishes every element of the offense charged. See Menefee, 287

S.W.3d at 13.

      In the manslaughter case, the indictment alleged:

      JAVLA MONAV SHERLEY, hereinafter called Defendant, on or
      about the 5th day of April, 2019, in the County of Dallas, State of
      Texas, did then and there recklessly cause the death of an individual,
      ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ, hereinafter called deceased, by DRIVING A
      MOTOR VEHICLE INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND IN THE
      WRONG DIRECTION ON AN INTERSTATE THEREFORE
      STRIKING THE MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPIED BY DECEASED,

      And it is further presented in and to said Court that a deadly weapon,
      to-wit: A MOTOR VEHICLE, was used and exhibited during the
      commission of the aforesaid offense.

      A motor vehicle may be found to be a deadly weapon if “the manner of its use

or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” TEX. PENAL

                                          –7–
CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(17); Melton v. State, No. 05-20-00543-CR, 2021 WL1884653,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 11, 2021, pet ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). A vehicle is not “capable of causing death or serious bodily injury”

unless its manner of use presents an “actual danger” of causing such harm. Drichas

v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 799–800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Moore v. State,

520 S.W.3d 906, 912–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). A judicial confession to using a

deadly weapon is sufficient to support a deadly weapon finding. Alexander v. State,

868 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.); Jackson v. State, No. 05-

10-00156-CR, 2011 WL 211375, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 25, 2011, pet. ref’d)

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

      Here, appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to manslaughter

“exactly as alleged the indictment.” The judicial confession was entered into

evidence and the guilty plea was accepted by the court.

      Likewise, the indictment in the aggravated assault case alleged:

      That JAYLA MONAY SHERLEY, hereinafter called Defendant, on or
      about the 5th day of April, 2019, in the County of Dallas, State of
      Texas, did unlawfully then and there intentionally, knowingly and
      recklessly cause serious bodily injury to another, namely, MICHAEL
      ARANDA, hereinafter called complainant, by DRIVING A MOTOR
      VEHICLE INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND IN THE WRONG
      DIRECTION ON AN INTERSTATE THEREFORE STRIKING THE
      MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPIED BY COMPLAINANT.

      Appellant’s judicial confession to this charge was also admitted into evidence

and the guilty plea accepted by the court. In addition, her plea paperwork also stated:

                                         –8–
“I admit and judicially confess that I committed the offense of AASBI on April 5,

2019, exactly as alleged in the charging instruments.”

         On this record, the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s deadly

weapon finding in the manslaughter case and that appellant caused serious bodily

injury in the aggravated assault case. Appellant’s second issue is overruled.

C.       Ineffective Assistance

         Appellant’s third issue argues her conviction should be reversed because her

counsel was ineffective.3 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a

defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) a

reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result

of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687, 694 (1984); State v. Morales, 253 S.W.3d 686, 696 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). The defendant bears the burden of proving both Strickland prongs by a

preponderance of the evidence. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1999).

         The right to effective assistance of counsel does not entitle a defendant to

errorless or perfect counsel, and a sound trial strategy may be imperfectly executed.

See Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Counsel’s

     3
      The State characterizes appellant’s ineffective assistance claims as appellant’s third and fourth issues.
We address appellant’s ineffective assistance arguments as the third issue, with multiple arguments within
the issue.
                                                     –9–
performance is only deficient if it falls below an objective standard of

reasonableness. See Johnson v. State, 624 S.W.3d 579, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)

(citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). “It is not sufficient that the appellant show, with

the benefit of hindsight, that his counsel’s actions or omissions during trial were

merely of questionable competence.” See id. (quoting Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d

425, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).

      There is a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide

range of reasonable professional assistance” and that counsel’s conduct constituted

sound trial strategy. Id. at 586 (quoting Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813). To defeat the

presumption, “[a]ny allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the

record and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness.”

See id. (quoting McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996));

Mata, 226 S.W.3d at 430. If the record is silent as to trial counsel’s strategy, we will

not conclude that counsel rendered ineffective assistance unless the challenged

conduct was “so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.”

See Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Bone v. State,

77 S.W.3d 828, 836 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (defendant must demonstrate that there

was no plausible reason for particular act or omission). In most cases, appellants are

unable to show deficient performance because an undeveloped record does not

adequately reflect trial counsel’s alleged failings. See Mata, 226 S.W.3d at 430.

                                         –10–
      We begin by considering the record on appeal. Appellant’s sentence was

pronounced on February 14, 2023. Appellant filed a form motion for new trial, and

it was denied the same day. Twenty-seven days later, appellant filed a substantive

motion for new trial. The motion was heard on May 11, eighty-six days after the

court pronounced sentence.

      A defendant must file a motion for new trial within thirty days after “the trial

court imposes or suspends sentence in open court.” TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4. “The court

must rule on a motion for new trial within 75 days after imposing or suspending

sentence in open court.” Id. at 21.8(a). “A motion not timely ruled on by written

order will be deemed denied when the [75-day] period . . . expires.” Id. at 21.8(c).

      Although, appellant’s motion was timely filed, the court did not conduct a

hearing until after the motion was overruled by operation of law. “[O]nce a motion

for new trial is overruled by operation of law, the trial court loses jurisdiction to rule

upon it.” Flores v. State, 679 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (citing State

v. Garza, 931 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). “[J]urisdiction over a case

is an absolute systemic requirement.” Id. (citing State v. Dunbar, 297 S.W.3d 777,

780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). Actions taken by a court without jurisdiction are void.

Id. (citing Ex parte Lozoya, 666 S.W.3d 618, 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023)).

Therefore, the evidence adduced at the hearing is not properly part of our

                                          –11–
consideration; we consider only the trial record, the motion, and the evidence

attached to the motion.4

        With this context, we consider appellant’s arguments. Appellant argues that

trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file pretrial motions challenging

the indictments under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 21.15. As previously

discussed, however, the manslaughter indictment satisfied article 21.15 and the

aggravated assault indictment was sufficient to give notice of the charged offenses.

Counsel’s performance cannot be deemed deficient for failing to file futile motions.

Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

        Appellant also argues counsel’s performance was deficient because he failed

to investigate and present a “date rape” involuntary intoxication theory. According

to appellant, a positive urine test for opiates after appellant was admitted to the

hospital, combined with her inability to recall events leading up to the crash

somehow demonstrates that she was involuntarily intoxicated. We disagree.

        We note at the outset that this argument was not raised in the motion for new

trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. But even if properly before us for review, the argument

is misplaced. Counsel is required to “make reasonable investigations” or “make a

reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland,

    4
      The evidence attached included one of appellant’s blood test reports and the affidavit of Latrice
Feltson, a relative who participated in the conferences between appellant and her trial counsel. Feltson
averred that appellant asked trial counsel to hire an expert to challenge the toxicology report alleging that
her blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit, and that trial counsel assured appellant she would get
probation.
                                                   –12–
466 U.S. at 690–91. The question is whether the evidence known to trial counsel

would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S.

510, 521 (2003).

      Here, the record reflects that appellant arrived at the hospital at 5:02 a.m. and

a morphine drip was started at 6:18 a.m. She received additional morphine at 8:05

a.m. and again at 9:32 a.m. Appellant’s urine sample for drug analysis was not

collected until 9:35 a.m. Appellant fails to demonstrate how this evidence supports

a theory that appellant was involuntarily intoxicated when she caused the accident.

      Appellant further insists counsel should have presented the urine test at the

open plea. That evidence, however, had already been introduced by the State.

Moreover, the test not only showed the hospital-administered opioids but also

cannabinoids that were not dispensed by the hospital. There is nothing to overcome

the presumption that counsel’s strategy concerning the urine test was not sound. See

Brennan v. State, 334 S.W.3d 64, 72 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).

       Appellant does not show what additional evidence would have been

discovered had counsel performed additional investigation. See Duckworth v. State,

89 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.). Because there is no evidence

that trial counsel’s investigation was deficient, or that a more thorough investigation

would have produced a different result, appellant’s argument fails. See Perez v.

State, 310 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (failure to satisfy either

Strickland prong is fatal).

                                        –13–
      Finally, appellant argues that counsel should be held ineffective, and prejudice

presumed under Cronic because there was no adversarial testing of the State’s case.

See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). Cronic provides that if an

appellant can demonstrate that defense counsel “entirely fail[ed] to subject the

prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” so that there was a

constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether, then prejudice, because it

is “so likely,” is legally presumed. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658–659; see also Bell v.

Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 696–697 (2002) (noting that, under Cronic, defense counsel’s

failure to test the prosecution’s case must be “complete” before prejudice is

presumed); Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743, 752–753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(discussing constructive denial of counsel and presumed prejudice); Giles v. State,

No. 05-18-00865-CR, 2019 WL 6486257, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 3, 2019,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (discussing Cronic).

      The difference between the Cronic and Strickland standards is not of degree,

but of kind. Bell, 535 U.S. at 697. In other words, Strickland involves “shoddy

representation,” whereas Cronic involves no defense at all. Giles, 2019 WL

6486257, at *4. As the Court of Criminal Appeals has observed, Cronic “is

epitomized by the ‘inert’ or ‘potted plant’ lawyer who although physically and

mentally present in the courtroom, fails to provide (or is prevented from providing)

any meaningful assistance.” McFarland, 163 S.W.3d at 752 (emphasis in original);

                                        –14–
Rubio v. State, No. 05-18-00861-CR, 2023 WL 3749804, at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas

June 1, 2023, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

        Appellant argues trial counsel provided no defense because he did not

vigorously cross-examine M.A. or hold the State to its “burden of proof beyond a

reasonable doubt.” These challenged actions do not equate to a complete absence of

representation.5

        Significantly, the witnesses testified after appellant pleaded guilty and her

judicial confessions were admitted into evidence. During the presentation of

evidence, defense counsel questioned witnesses, objected to evidence, presented

mitigating evidence, corrected an error in a presentence report, and argued for

probation in closing. Trial counsel was not a potted plant. See McFarland, 163

S.W.3d at 752.

         Based on the foregoing, we conclude appellant did not establish ineffective

assistance under Strickland or Cronic and resolve her third issue against her.

    5
      After a guilty plea, the State is no longer required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. McGill,
200 S.W.3d at 330; see also Runnels v. State, No. 05-19-00621-CR, 2021 WL 210752, at *3 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Jan. 21, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant also criticizes trial
counsel for being “unaware of the TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 limitations . . . on probation . .
. .” That statute, however, has been repealed. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN art. 42.12. Repealed by
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 770 (H.B. 2299), § 3.01, eff. Jan. 1, 2017; Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 324 (S.B.
1488), §§ 23.012(d), 23.013(d), 23.014(b), 23.015(b), 23.016(h), 23.017(b), 23.018(b), 23.019(b),
23.020(b), 23.021(b), eff. Sept. 1, 2017; Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 877 (H.B. 3016), § 11(a), eff. Sept. 1,
2017.

                                                    –15–
D.    Written Waiver of Jury Trial

      Appellant’s fourth issue argues her convictions must be reversed because

there is no written waiver of a jury trial. The record reflects otherwise.

      Specifically, the “Defendant’s Statements and Waivers” section of the plea

papers appellant signed states:

      I hereby waive my right to be tried on an indictment returned by a
      grand jury; any and all defects, errors, or irregularities, whether of form
      or substance, in the charging instrument; my right to a jury trial; and
      my right to remain silent.

(Emphasis added).

      Appellant appears to argue that because this is not a plea bargain case barring

appellant’s right to appeal under article 44.02, the signed waiver in the plea

paperwork is of no effect. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. There is no

authority to support this proposition. Indeed, the nature of an open plea, which

appellant elected to enter in hopes of receiving deferred adjudication, underscores

the fallacy of this argument.

      Only a judge can order deferred adjudication. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 42A.101(a). By its terms, the statutory option authorizing deferred

adjudication is limited to defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere before the

trial court after waiving trial by jury (emphasis added). State ex rel. Mau v. Third

Court of Appeals, 560 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (emphasis added);

see also Hogberg v. State, No. 02-21-00103-CR, 2022 WL 4272862, at *3 (Tex.

                                         –16–
App.—Fort Worth Sept. 15, 2000, no pet.). Thus, if appellant had not waived a jury

trial, deferred adjudication would not have been an option.

      In addition to the signed written waivers, the trial court expressly questioned

appellant about the relinquishment of her rights:

      THE COURT: You understood all of your statutory and constitutional
      rights?

      APPELLANT: Yes, ma’am.

      THE COURT: And you know you have an absolute right to a trial by
      jury for each of these 2 offenses separate and apart from one another?

      APPELLANT: Yes, ma’am.

      THE COURT: Do you give up your right to each jury trial in exchange
      for the plea agreements you’ve made -- well, in exchange for the State
      allowing you to go open with the hopes of deferred adjudication?

      APPELLANT: Yes, ma’am.

      Because the record clearly reflects appellant’s waiver of the right to trial by

jury, we resolve her fourth issue against her.

E.    The Judgment

      The judgment reflects that this is a plea bargain case. This was not a plea

bargain case. We are authorized to reform a judgment to make the record speak the

truth when we have the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d

26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We therefore reform the judgment to reflect that

there was no plea bargain.

                                        –17–
                                  III. CONCLUSION

      Having resolved all of appellant’s issues against her, we modify the judgment

to reflect that this was not a plea bargain case and as modified, affirm the trial court’s

judgments.

                                             /Dennise Garcia/
                                             DENNISE GARCIA
                                             JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
230196F.U05

                                          –18–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

JAYLA SHERLEY, Appellant                    On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
                                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-23-00196-CR         V.               Trial Court Cause No. F19-00690-Q.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                Justices Breedlove and Kennedy
                                            participating.

     Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we MODIFY the trial court’s
judgment to reflect that this was not a plea bargain case. As MODIFIED, the
judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 27, 2024

                                     –19–
                                   S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

JAYLA SHERLEY, Appellant                    On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
                                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-23-00197-CR         V.               Trial Court Cause No. F19-00691-Q.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                Justices Breedlove and Kennedy
                                            participating.

     Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we MODIFY the trial court’s
judgment to reflect that this was not a plea bargain case. As MODIFIED, the
judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 27, 2024.

                                     –20–