Jason Morris Womack v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: January 15, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00288-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 02-25-00288-CR ___________________________

JASON MORRIS WOMACK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CR20-0883

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant Jason Morris Womack pleaded guilty to

possessing less than one gram of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine,

and pleaded true to certain enhancement allegations that elevated the punishment

range for his offense to that of a third-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code

Ann. § 481.115(a), (b); see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.425(a). The trial court

deferred finding him guilty of the offense and placed him on five years’ deferred-

adjudication community supervision beginning in August 2022. In October 2023,

Womack pleaded true to violating his community-supervision conditions and was

given additional conditions. But in January 2025, the State filed a Petition to Proceed

to Adjudication, alleging that Womack had committed five additional violations of his

community-supervision conditions. The trial court held a hearing, found that

Womack had violated the terms of his community supervision, and sentenced him to

nine years in prison. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34 (setting forth punishment

range for third-degree felony). Womack timely filed a notice of appeal.

After determining that Womack’s appeal was frivolous, his court-appointed

appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that

motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400

(1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with

2 Kelly v. State, Womack’s counsel has certified that he provided Womack with copies of

the brief and the motion to withdraw, that he informed Womack of his right to file a

pro se response, and that he mailed Womack a complete copy of the entire record.

See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court likewise mailed Womack

a notice advising him that he had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the

Anders brief, but he did not do so.

The State declined to file a brief and instead filed a letter in which it agreed

with Womack’s appointed counsel that the appeal is frivolous. However, the State

pointed out in its letter that the judgment, bill of costs, and order to withdraw funds

contain nonreversible error. Each recites that Womack owes restitution of $180, but

the record reflects that he paid off his restitution obligation prior to the adjudication

of his guilt. The State asks us to modify the judgment, bill of costs, and order to

withdraw funds to reflect this payment. We may correct and modify the judgment of

a trial court to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary data and

information to do so. See Ette v. State, 551 S.W.3d 783, 792 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2017), aff’d, 559 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see also Ray v. State, No. 05-17-

00820, 2018 WL 1149421, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 5, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal). The record

supports the requested modification. Accordingly, we modify the judgment, bill of

costs, and order to withdraw funds to reflect that Womack has paid his $180

restitution obligation. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).

3 We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record

that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment as modified.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: January 15, 2026