Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-15-2021

Case Style:

Bronwen Victoria McHenry v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 04-20-00015-CR

Judge: PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Court: Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Steven Tays

Defendant's Attorney:


Free National Lawyer Directory


OR


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.



Description:

San Antonio, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Bronwen Victoria McHenry with a Possession of a Controlled Substance charge.



In this case, McHenry represents herself pro se on appeal and did not file an appellate brief
despite being given the opportunity to do so by us. We ultimately abated the appeal and remanded
the cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether McHenry had abandoned the appeal,
was indigent, and should be appointed counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). In accordance
with our order, the trial court held a hearing on September 3, 2020, but McHenry did not appear.
At the hearing, the trial court noted that its records showed that McHenry had been released on
parole from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on or about July 17, 2020. The trial court
further noted it had sent a notice of the September hearing to McHenry’s last known address prior
to incarceration by certified and regular mail, but the notices were returned unclaimed.
The trial court ultimately found that although McHenry stated it was her desire to appeal
her sentence when she was sentenced on December 3, 2019, she has made no effort to contact the
trial court since her release from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Because McHenry
did not respond to the trial court’s notice of setting or appear at the abandonment hearing, the trial
court also noted it was unable to review McHenry’s indigency.
In light of the foregoing, we construed the trial court’s finding that appellant has had no
contact with the trial court since her release from custody as a finding that appellant no longer
desired to prosecute the appeal. See Lopez v. State, No. 04-18-00335-CR, 2019 WL 208564, at *1
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 16, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(describing trial court’s determination that pro se appellant had abandoned appeal based on failure
to attend hearing after notice had been sent to appellant’s last known address). Under these
circumstances, we may consider the appeal without briefs pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 38.8(b)(4). TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4) (when “the trial court has found that the appellant
no longer desires to prosecute the appeal, ... the appellate court may consider the appeal without
04-20-00015-CR
- 3 -
briefs, as justice may require”). Upon our review of the appellate record, we find no unassigned
fundamental error.
We note, however, that the trial court’s judgment states McHenry entered a plea of “true”
to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. This notation conflicts with the record of the
adjudication hearing, which shows McHenry entered a plea of “not true.” On our own motion, we
may “reform the judgment to make the record speak the truth,” even if the parties have not asked
it to do so. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Hernandez v. State,
No. 04-18-00265-CR, 2019 WL 2013861, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 8, 2019, no pet.)
(not designated for publication). Accordingly, we reform the judgment to reflect McHenry’s plea
of “not true” to the State’s allegations. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Woods v. State, 398 S.W.3d 396,
405–06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, pet. ref’d).

Outcome: We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: