Keri Ludahl v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00167-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00167-CR

KERI LUDAHL, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-2022-CR-2434, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding

November 18, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Keri Ludahl, appeals her conviction for possession with intent to deliver

methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. 1 We

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(a), (d). BACKGROUND

While searching Appellant’s purse and vehicle during a traffic stop, law

enforcement officers discovered several baggies containing a substance later determined

to be methamphetamine. The aggregate weight of the methamphetamine was

approximately 25.6 grams. Appellant was indicted and pleaded guilty to the offense of

possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony. She signed

a sworn “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial

Confession,” which read, in part,

The charges against me allege that on or about December 02, 2021, in Lubbock County, Texas, I, KERI LUDAHL . . . did then and there knowingly possess, with intent to deliver, a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams . . . .

I understand the foregoing allegations and I confess that they are true.

In an open plea hearing, Appellant acknowledged signing the document. She

agreed that she understood her plea and its consequences and chose to enter the plea

freely. She further acknowledged that she was aware of the full punishment range for the

offense. The trial court signed the document, acknowledging that Appellant came before

the trial court and the trial court “approved the above” statement. The trial court accepted

Appellant’s plea and, in a later hearing, sentenced her to a ten-year term of imprisonment.

ANALYSIS

In a single issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to find her

guilty of the charged offense. She asserts that the evidence established possession of

methamphetamine but nothing more. 2 Where a defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleads guilty or nolo

contendere to a felony, the appellate standards of review for sufficiency do not apply. Ex

parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); O’Brien v. State, 154 S.W.3d

908, 910 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). The State is required to introduce evidence

demonstrating the defendant’s guilt, and no trial court is authorized to render a conviction

in a felony case based on a plea of guilty without sufficient evidence to support the same.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15. While the State must introduce evidence into the record

establishing a defendant’s guilt, there is no requirement that the supporting evidence

prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325,

330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Rather, the supporting evidence must simply

embrace each essential element of the offense charged. Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424,

427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

A sworn written confession acknowledging guilt as to the offense charged,

standing alone, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 1.15. Menefee v. State,

287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). A judicial confession need not be offered into

evidence to support a plea of guilty as long as it has been approved by the court and

appears in the record. Chamberlain v. State, No. 07-14-00011-CR, 2015 Tex. App.

LEXIS 3905, at *15 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 16, 2015, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem.

op., not designated for publication). Here, Appellant’s sworn statement covers every

element of the offense, including the intent to deliver element at issue on appeal. The

trial court referred to Appellant’s judicial confession when discussing and then accepting

Appellant’s plea. The trial court also signed and approved the document, which appears

in the record.

3 We conclude that Appellant’s sworn judicial confession sufficiently supports her

plea of guilty to the offense. See Wetterman v. State, No. 07-17-00209-CR, 2018 Tex.

App. LEXIS 5844, at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 27, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (judicial confession in which defendant “confess[ed] to the

offense of DWI exactly as charged in the indictment” sufficient to support defendant’s plea

of guilty); Chamberlain, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3905, at *14–15 (judicial confession

sufficient to support guilty plea even when trial court did not sign document and document

was not offered into evidence); Stewart v. State, 12 S.W.3d 146, 148 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (explaining that “judicial confession alone is sufficient

to sustain a conviction” and that “judicial confession may take the form of an affirmative

acknowledgment by the defendant that the indictment was true and correct”).

Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issue.

CONCLUSION

We overrule Appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.