Deborah Jean Horn v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00129-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00129-CR

DEBORAH JEAN HORN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 271st District Court Wise County, Texas Trial Court No. CR21276, Honorable Brock R. Smith, Presiding

August 29, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Deborah Jean Horn, pleaded guilty in May 2019 to possession of a

controlled substance in an amount less than 200 grams but more than four grams. See

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d). She was placed on five years’ deferred

adjudication community supervision. On March 5, 2025, the trial court heard the State’s

1 Because this matter was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals, we apply its precedent

when it conflicts with that of the Seventh Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. motion to proceed to adjudication in the cause, which had been pending since December

2023.2

At the hearing, appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations contained in the State’s

motion, which included allegations that appellant committed subsequent criminal

offenses, failed to avoid injurious habits by using methamphetamine several times by her

own admission, failed to report to her community supervision officer, failed to complete

community service, and failed to pay her fines, costs, and fees imposed as conditions of

her community supervision. Without specifying the grounds it expressly found to be true,

the trial court granted the State’s motion to adjudicate, found appellant guilty of the

originally charged offense of possession of a controlled substance, and sentenced

appellant to four years’ imprisonment for the second-degree felony. The trial court

pronounced that it would not impose any additional fines or costs of court.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal

was frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d

493 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Pursuant to Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and

a motion to withdraw with this court, stating that his review of the record yielded no

grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id. Counsel’s

2 In fulfilling our duty to independently review the record for error, we consider the trial court’s

jurisdiction to entertain the State’s motion, given that it took place after the ostensible expiration of appellant’s community supervision. The record demonstrates that capias was issued on December 27, 2023, and was served in January 2024. Because the State filed its motion to adjudicate and a capias was issued within the period of deferred adjudication, the trial court retained jurisdiction to conduct a hearing on the motion to adjudicate. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.108(c); Hoard v. State, No. 07-24- 00233-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 2517, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 11, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Schaefer v. State, No. 02-21-00118-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8631, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 23, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (stating that “[i]n Texas, an

Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none,

but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out

pertinent legal authorities”); see also Davis v. State, 683 S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.). Appellant’s counsel also represented that he performed

the following duties: 1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw; 2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; 3) informed

appellant of her rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those

responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous;

and 4) provided appellant with the appellate record. By letter, the court notified appellant

of her right to file a response to counsel’s motion and brief if she wished to do so. To

date, the court has received no response.

We conducted our own independent review of the record to determine the

presence of arguable issues and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

3 Accordingly, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.3

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

3 Within five days from the date of this court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this

opinion and this court’s judgment to appellant and to advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. 4