### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00515- CR

Daniel Cam arillo Gar cia, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 340 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. C-1 5-0 944- SA, TH E H ONO RAB LE JAY K . WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Daniel Camarillo Gar cia pled g uilty to the offe nse of felony driving while intox icated, see Tex. Penal Code §§ 49.04(a) , 49.09(b), and the trial court assessed his punishment

at confine ment for 30 y ear s in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice pursuant to t h e h ab i t u al offe nder punishment provision of the Penal Code, see id. § 12.42(d). I n a singl e p o i n t o f err or, appellant complains about the admission of punishment evidenc e and challeng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e supporting his enhanc ed punishment. We aff irm the judg ment of convic tion.

BACK GR OUND Parag raph One of the indictment in this case char g ed appellant with driving while intox icated on or ab o ut September 12, 2015, and alleg ed, for purposes of eleva ting the instant offe nse to felony

driving while intox icated, two pr ior felony DWI convictions:PARAGRAPH ONE

The Gra nd J u ro rs for the County of Tom Gre en, State of Texas, duly selec ted, impaneled, sworn, char g ed and org anized as such at the J uly Term 2015, of the 51ST Dis t ri ct Court of said County , upon their oaths prese nt in and to said Court, that DANI EL CAMARI L L O GARCI A, Def endant on or ab o u t the 12th day of September, 2015, and befor e the prese ntment of this indictment, in said County and State, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place in said county and state while the sa id Defe ndant was intoxi cate d; And i t is further prese nted i n and to said Court that, prior to the c ommissi on of the afor esaid offe nse, on the 20th day of Aug ust, 1997, in Cause No. B- 96-0839-S in the 119th D istrict Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, the Def endant was convicted of an offe nse rela ting to the operating of a motor vehicle while intox icated, and on the 14th day of J uly , 1993, in Cause No. CR93-0327-A in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, the Def endant was convicted of an offe nse rela ting to the oper ating of a motor ve hicle while intoxi cate d[.]

See id. §§ 49.04(a) , 49.09(b). Paragraphs Two and Three of t h e i n d ictment alleg ed additional sequential prior felony DWI convictions for the purpose of enhanc ing appellant’ s punishment to that of a ha bitual offende r:

PARAGRAPH TW O And, the Gra

nd J urors upon their oaths further prese nt that prior to the commission of the offe nse in pa

rag raph one, DANI EL CAMARI L L O GARCI A AKA DANI EL GARCI A, on the 28th day of May , 2010, in the 119TH District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in Cause Number B- 09-0902-SB sty led THE STATE OF TEXAS vs. DANI EL CAMARI L L O GARCI A AKA DANI EL GARCI A, was leg ally and finally convicted of Driving Whil e I nt o x i ca t ed 3 rd or More, a third deg ree felony , upon a ch ar gi ng instrument then pending in that Court and of which that Co u rt had jurisdiction;
PARAGRAPH THREE And it is further prese nted that, prior to the commission of the offe nses in para g raphs one and two, DANI EL CAMARI L L O GARCI A AKA DANI EL GARCI A, on the 14th da y of September , 2005, in the 119T[H] J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en

2County , Texas, in Cause Number B- 05-0830-S sty led THE STATE OF TEXAS vs.

DANI EL GARCI A, was leg ally and finally convicted of Driving Whil e Intox icated with two prior convictions for driving while intox icated, a t h i rd d eg ree felony , upon a char g ing inst rum ent then pending in that Court and of which that Court had jurisdiction[.]

See id. § 12.42(d).

I n an open plea to the court, appellant pled g uilty to felo n y DW I as char g ed in Parag raph One but not true to the alleg ations char g ing prior felony DWI convictions in Parag raphs
Two and Three , so the State assumed the burden of proof. The State’s supporting evidenc e for proof of the enhanc em en t al leg ations included two penitentiary packe ts or “pen packe ts,” admitted as 1
State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3, a waiver and stipulation of evidenc e, admitted as State’s Ex hibit 4, a judgme nt of conviction, admitted as S tate’s Ex hibit 5, and a judgment of conviction and a waiver of stipulation of evidenc e, admitted as State’ s Ex hibit 6.

State’s Ex hibit 2 consists o f the aff idavit of the Chairman of Classification and Records for the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division cer tify ing the pen pa cket unde r the seal of t he S tate of Texas; a page bear ing photogr aphs of the i nmate; an 2
order revoking probation; a judgme nt of conviction; and a fing erpr int car d with the i n m at e’ s

A “pen packe t” is a document comp i l ed b y a p rison officia l based on other primary 1 documentation rece ived from the c lerk of the convicting court. See Flowers v. Stat e , 220 S.W .3d 919, 923, n.14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Luera v. State , No. 07-14-00111- CR, 2015 W L5559905, at *3 n.5 (Tex. App.—Amar illo Sept. 16, 2015, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op., n o t d es i gn at ed for publication). The chair man’s aff idavit in the pen packe t ref ers to “the attache d information provided on 2 inmate Gar cia, Daniel, TDCJ /BPP# 078027 Cause # CR-90-0025-A, CR93-0327-A,” and states that the documents “ar e true and co rr ec t co p ies of the orig inal rec ords now on file in my office maintained in the regular course of business within the Bur eau of Classification and Records of the Texas Depar

tment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division.” 3signature. The judgm en t i n t h e pen packe t ref lects one of the DWI convictions the State relied

on for elevating the instant offe nse to a fe l o n y : fr o m the 51st J udicial District Court of
Tom Gre en County , Texas, bear ing cause number CR93-0327-A, and sty led “The State of Texas vs. Daniel Camarillo Gar cia.” The judgme nt ref lects that the defe ndant was convicted on J uly 14, 1993, of the offe nse of felony DWI committed on Marc h 28, 1993, and sentenc ed to five y ear s in prison. 3

State’s Ex hibit 3 consists of the aff idavit of the Chairman of Classification and Records for the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division cer tify ing the pen packe t under the s ea l o f the State of Texas; a pag e bear ing photogr aphs of the inmate 4
iden t i fi ed by the name “Da niel Camarillo Gar cia” and an I D number of 875782; a judgme nt of conviction; and a fi n gerprint car d with the inmate’s signature. The judgme nt in this pen packe t ref lec t s t h e o t h er DWI conviction the State relied on for eleva ting the instant offe nse to a felony : from the 119th J udicial District Court o f T o m Gr een County , Texas, bear ing cause number
B- 96-0839-S, and sty led “The State of Texas vs. Daniel Camarillo Gar cia.” The judgme nt ref lects that the defe ndant was convicted on Aug ust 20, 1997, of the offe nse of f elony DWI committed on October 10, 1996, and sente nced to ten y ear s in prison.

The pe n packe t also contains an order revoking probation from the 51st J udicial District 3 Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, bear ing cause number CR90-0325-A, and sty led “The State of Texas vs. Daniel Camarillo Gar cia.” The order ref lects that the defe ndant was convicted on J uly 14, 1993, of the offe nse of felony DWI committed on November 15, 1989, and sentenc ed to five y ear s in prison. That prior c onviction is not relevant to appe llant’s sufficie ncy challeng e. The chair man’s aff idavit in this pen packe t ref ers to “the attache d information provided on 4 inmate Gar cia, Da

niel, TDCJ /BPP# 875782 Cause # B- 96-0839-S,” and states that the doc uments “ar e true and corr ect copies of the orig inal rec ords now on file in my office maintained in the reg ular course of b u siness within the Bur eau of Classification and Records of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division.” 4State’s Ex hibit 4 is a document cer tified by the district cler

k of Tom Gre en County , Texas, entitled W

aiver an d S t i

p u l a t i o n of Evidenc e , in a case sty led “The State of Texas vs. Daniel Gar cia,” bear ing cause number B- 05-0830-S. The document is signe d by “Da niel C. Gar cia” and contains a judicial confe ssion to committing the offe nse of felony DWI on April 5, 2005, in Tom Gre en County , T ex as , and a stipulation to two prior DWI convictions, eleva ting the offe nse to a felony : a DWI conviction on Aug ust 20, 1997, in the 119t h J udicial Dis trict Court of Tom Green County , Texas, in cause numbe r B -96-0839- S and a DWIconviction on J uly 14, 1993, in the 51s t J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause numbe r CR93-0327-A.

State’s Ex hibit 5 is a judgme nt from the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, bear ing cause number B- 05-0830-S, and sty led “The State of Texas vs. Daniel
Gar cia.” The judg ment ref lects that the de fenda

nt was convic ted of the of fense of felony

DWI on September 14, 2005, for an offe nse committ ed on April 5, 2005, and sentenc ed to four y ear s in prison. The fourth pag e of the exhibi t is an at tachment to the judgme nt, bear ing cause number
B- 05-0830-S, and listi ng the defe ndant’s name in the sty le of the case as “Da niel Camarillo Gar cia” with “Ga rcia , Danny ” underne ath. On that pag e appea rs a h an d wr i tten date of “9-14- 05” and a fing erpr int designa

ted as the de fenda

nt’s rig ht thumb finge rprint.
State’s Ex hibit 6 is a judgme nt from the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en C o u n t y , Texas, bear ing cause number B- 09-0902-SB , and sty led “The State of Texas v s . Daniel Camarillo Gar cia AKA Daniel Gar cia.” The judgme nt ref lects that the defe ndan t

was convicted o f t h e offe nse of felony DWI on May 28, 2010, for an offe nse committed on Aug ust 4, 2009, and sentenc ed to ten y ear s in prison. The third pag e of the exhibi t is an attachme nt

5to the judgme nt, bear ing cause number B- 09-0902-SB , and listi ng the defe ndant’s name in the sty le

of the case as “D aniel Camar illo Garcia ” with “Ga rcia , Danny ” under

neath. On tha t pag e appe ars

a handwr itten date of “5-28- 10” and a fing erpr int desig nated as the defe ndant’s rig ht thumb fing erpr int. The fifth pag e of the exhibi t is a document entitled W aiver and Stipulati on of

Evidenc e , bear ing c ause numbe r B -09-0902- SB. The doc ument is signed by “Da niel Gar cia” and conta ins a judicial confe ssion to committing the offe nse of felony DWI on Aug ust 4, 2009 , i n T o m Gre en County , Texas, and a stipulation to two prior DWI convictions, eleva ting the offe nse to a felony : a DWIconviction on Aug ust 20, 1997, in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas in cause number B- 96-0839-S and a DWI conviction on J uly 14, 1993, in th e 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas in cause numbe r CR93-0327-A.

DISCUSSIO N
I n a single point of err or, appellant argues that the trial court err ed in admitting State’s
Ex hibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6—the documents used to prove up the prior felony DWI convictions alleg ed
in the enhanc ement para g raphs of the indictment—beca use the exhibi ts wer e not proper ly authenticated. Appe l l an t fu rther argues that the exhibi ts did not sufficie ntly link him to the prior fel o n y DWI convictions alleg ed and, there fore , the evidenc e was insufficient to support his enhanc ed punishment as a habitual of fende r. 5

Appellant confla tes his authentication complaint and his sufficie ncy claim in his argument; 5 we a ddress them sepa

rate ly in this opi nion. 6Authentication Authentication of evidenc e is a condition prec edent to its admissibili ty

. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(a) ; Tienda v. State , 358 S.W .3d 633, 638 (Tex. C ri m . App. 2012); Turnbull v. State , No. 03-11-00118- CR, 2013 WL 5925543, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 24, 2013, pet. ref ’d) (mem.
op., not desig nated for publication). The proponent of the evidenc e must “make a threshold showing that would be ‘suffic ient to supp o rt a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” Tienda , 358 S.W .3d at 638 (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 901(a) ); Ree d v. State , 811 S.W .2d 582,
586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Druery v. State , 225 S.W .3d 491, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

Rule of Evidence 901 “does not ere ct a particula rly high hurdle, and that hurdle may b e cl ear ed by circ umstantial evidenc e.” Campbell v. State , 382 S.W .3d 545, 549 (Tex

. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (quoting Peter T. Hoffma n, Texas Rules of

Evidenc e Handbook , Article
I X at 948 (8th ed. 2008–09)); see Sears v. State , No. 09-15-00161- CR, 2017 WL 444366, at *15 (Tex. App.—B eaumont J an. 31, 2017, pet. filed) (m em. op., not desig nated for publication); Turnbull , 2013 WL 5925543, at *2. The proponent of th e ev i d en ce d o es not need “to rule out al l p o s sibili ties inconsistent with authenticity , or to prove beyond any doubt that the evidenc e i s wh at i t p u rp orts to be.” Campbell , 382 S.W .3d at 549; see Sears , 2017 WL 444366, at *15; Turnbull , 201 3 WL 5925543, at *2. The proponent must only produce sufficie nt evidenc e that a

rea sonable fac t finder could proper ly find g enuinene ss. Tienda , 3 5 8 S

. W.3d at 638; Turnbull , 2013 WL 5925543, at *2.

R u l es o f E vidence 901 and 902 g overn the authentica tion require ment. Rule of Evidence 901(b) provides an illust rative, though not ex h au s t i v e, list of examples of extrinsi c

7evidenc e that satisfies the require ment of authe ntication. See Tex. R. Evi d. 901(b)( 1)–(10) ; Ree d ,

811 S.W .2d at 586. Rule 902 identifies cer tain evidenc e as self-a

uthenticating and dispenses with Rule 901’s requirement of extrinsi c evidence of authenti ci t y fo r t h at evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 902(1)–( 10). A document may be authenticated under either Texas Rule of Evidence 901 or 902 and need not be authenticated under both. See Ree d , 811 S.W .2d at 586; Haas v. State , 494 S.W .3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

We revie w a trial court’s decision to admit evidenc e over an authentica tion objection for an abuse of discretion. Tienda , 358 S.W .3d at 638; Hunter v. S t a te , 513 S.W .3d 638, 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 1 4 t h Di st.] 2016, no pet.); Turnbull , 2013 WL 5925543, at *3; see Druery , 225 S.W .3d at 502. I f the trial court’s ruling is at least within th e z o n e o f re as o n able disag ree ment, we will not i n t er fe re. Tienda , 358 S.W .3d at 638; Hunter , 513 S.W .3d at 640; Turnbull , 2013 WL 5925543, at *3.

State’s Exhibits 2 and 3

To prese rve err or, a party must timely object and state the g rounds for the objection with enoug h specific ity to make the trial judge awa re of the complaint, unless the specific g rounds

w e r e a p p a r e n t f r o m th e c o n te xt. T e x. R. A p p . P. 3 3

. 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; s e e Th o m a s v
. S ta te , 5 0 5 S. W. 3 d 9 1 6 , 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Y azdchi v. State , 428 S.W .3d 831, 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The objection must be sufficie ntly clea r to g ive the judge and opposing counsel an opportuni t y t o addre ss and, if nece ssary , cor re ct the purported err or. Thomas , 505 S.W .3d at 924; Ford v. Stat e , 30 5 S

. W

. 3 d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see Smith v. Stat e , 499 S.W .3d 1, 7–8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (“The re are two main purposes behind requiring a timely and specific objection. First,

8the j udg e needs to be suffic iently informed of

the basis of the obje ction and at a time when he ha s the chanc e to rule on the issue at hand. Second, opposing counsel must have the chanc e to remove the objection or provide other testimony .”). I f a trial objection does not comport with arguments on
appea l, error

has not bee n prese rved. Thomas , 505 S.W .3d at 924; Goff v

. State , 931 S.W .2d 537, 551 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Y azdchi , 428 S.W .3d at 844.
At trial, appellant objected to State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3, the pen packe ts, asser ting that “the State has not filed these aff idavits with the Court, four t ee n -d ay rule.” Thus, it appea rs that

conce rning the authentication of the pen packe ts, appellant complained that the State did not comply with the notice require ments of Rule of Evidence 902(10), which g overns the self-a uthentication of business rec ords throug h an aff idavit. Howeve r, on appea l, appellant complains that the pen packe ts

wer e not proper ly authenticated under Rule of Evidence 902(4), which g overns the self-a uthentication of cer

tified public rec ords. Thus, appellant’ s complaint about the admission of State’s Exhi bits 2 and 3 was not prope rly prese rved f

or appe llate re view. 6

We note that prior to 2014, one pursuing self-a uthentication of business rec ords under Rule 6 902(10) was obl i gat ed t o fi l e the records and aff idavit with the court cler

k at l east 14 day s befor e trial and notify the other parties of the filing. See former Tex. R. Evid. 902(10). Howeve r, the rule was amende d to remove the require ment that the rec ords be filed with the trial court and, eff ective September 1, 2014, the rule require s only that the proponent of the business rec ords serve the rec ords and the acc ompany ing aff idavit on the opposing party at least 14 day s p ri o r t o trial. See Act of May 17, 2013, 83d L eg ., R.S., ch. 560, § 3, 2013 Tex. Gen. L aws 1 5 0 7 , 1 5 0 8 ; s ee also Final Approva l of Amendments to Texas Rule of Evidence 9 0 2 , 2 014 TEXAS COURT ORDER 0012 (C.O. 0012). Thus, at the time of the punishment hear ing in this case , the State was not require d to file the a ffidavit and r ecor ds with the court. 9Moreove r, even assuming that appellant’ s trial objection to improper

self-a uthentication of business rec ords pursuant to Rule 902(10) suffice d to preser ve his appe llate complaint about the fa ilure to proper ly self-a uthenticate public rec ords under Rule 902(4), but see Guaderrama v. State , No. 02-14-00500- CR, 2016 WL 8283 2 5 , at *4 (Tex. App.—For t Worth
Mar. 3, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (conc luding that g ener al authentication objection at trial was “improper authentica tion objection” and inadequa te to prese rve complaint on appea l), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3.

By statute, cer

tified penitentiary packe ts are self-a uthenticated. See Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. ar t. 42.09, § 8(b). Fur

ther, pen packe ts are admissible to show a defe ndant’s prior c riminal 7

rec ord if they comply with either Rule of Evidence 901 or 902. Ree d , 811 S.W .2d at 586. The Court of Criminal Appe als has expli citly held that the cer tification of a pe n packe t by the rec ord cler k of the Texas Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice, I nstitut ional Division (TDCJI D) is proper authentication under Rule of

Evidence 901, see id. at 587 (“[T] he TDCJI D re cord c lerk’s c ertification of the pen packe t copies of the judgme nt and sentenc e constitutes sufficie nt extr in s ic e v id e n c e [u nder Rule 901] that the copies are authentic.” ), as well as under Rule 902(4), see id. at 586 (“[W] e therefor e hold

Specifica lly , section 8(b) of ar ticle 42.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: 7
The Texas Depa rt ment of Criminal J ustice shall not take a defe ndant into custody under this article until the desig nated office r re ce i v es the documents require d by Subsections (a) and (c) of this section. The desig nated office r shall cer tify under the seal of the depar

tment the documents rec eived under Subsections ( a) and (c) of this section. A docume nt certified under this subsection is self-authenticated for the purposes of Rules 901 and 902, Texas Rules of Ev idence

. Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a

rt. 42.09, § 8(b) ( emphasis adde d).

10that the TDCJ I D rec ord cler k’s cer tification of the pen packe t copies of the judgme nt and sentenc e constitutes proper authentication in acc ordanc e with Rule 902(4) of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.” ).

I n the instant case , both State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3 include the aff idavit of the Chairman of Classification and Records at TDCJ I D, in which he cer tified that the pen packe t contained “true and corr ect copies of the orig inal rec ords” that wer e on file in his office and maintained in the reg ular

course of busi ness. The affidavit b ea rs t h e s eal of t he S tate of Texas. This cer tification provides sufficie nt evidenc e to support a finding that State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3 are what the State claimed them

t o be, and thus the pen packe ts wer e proper ly authentica ted. The trial court did not abuse its 8 discretion in admitting State’ s Ex hibits 2 and 3.

Appellant also argues in his brief that, notwithstanding the cer tification of the rec ords cler k, 8 the pen packe ts wer e st ill not proper ly authentica ted because the aff idavits wer e ex ecuted on J uly 25, 2005. He asser

ts that the time lapse betwee n the cer tification and trial rende rs the cer tification “stale.” Howeve r, appellant did not complain about the “stalene ss” of the pen packe ts at tr ial, and there fore has not prese rved this complaint for appellate revie w. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) ; Thomas v. State , 505 S.W .3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Y azdchi v. State , 428 S.W .3d 831, 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Moreove r, the staleness rule is conce rned with fac ts asser ted in a probable cause aff idavit a nd whether items to be sea rche d and seized will probably be in a desig nated place at the time of the proposed sear ch. See Rowell v. Sta te , 14 S.W .3d 806, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 200 0 ), a

f f’d , 66 S.W .3d 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); see also Crider v. State , 352 S.W .3d 704, 707–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (discussing staleness conce rn and observing , “The hare and t h e t ortoise do not disappea r over the hill at the same speed. The likelihood that the evidenc e soug ht is still available and in the same place is a function, not just of the watch or the cale ndar, but of the particula r varia bles in the case. ”). Probable cause aff idavits addre ss the exis tence of transient evidenc e wher eas the attestation of the T D CJI D r e c o r d s c le r k a d d r esses rec ords maintained in the course of offici al b u s i ness. The conce pt of staleness is not applicable to the aff idavit of a c ustodian of re cords c ertify ing the corr ectne ss of the per manent re cords maintaine d. 11State’s Exhibits 4, 5, and 6
State’s Ex hibits 4, 5, and 6 are cer tified copies of the rec o rd s o f t h e Tom Gre en County district cler

k. Eac h exhibi t has been cer tified by a Tom Gre en County deputy district cler k that the rec ord is a “true and corr ect” copy of the orig inal rec ord on file in the district cler k’s office

. Thus, these exhibi ts are self-a uthent i ca t i n g under Rule 902(4)( A). See Tex. R. Evid. 902(4)( A) 9 (copy of officia l rec ord with cer tification as to its acc urac y by custodian or other authorized person is self-a uthenticating ); see also Tex. R. Evid. 902(1) (public documents under seal with attestation signature are self-a

uthenticating ); see, e.g. , Allen v. State , No. 01-13-00784- CR, 2015 WL 5076288,

at *11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug

. 2 7 , 2015, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (copie s of convicting court’s rec ords with cer tification of Orlea

ns Parish deputy cler

k

wer e self-a

uthenticating ); Martinez v. State , No. 08-06-00107- CR, 2008 WL 1903488, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 30, 2008, no pet.) (not desig nated for publication) (re cords of prior conviction from convicting court containing cer tification from Be x ar County cler k’s offic e we re self-a uthenticating ). Thus, the trial court did not a buse its discretion in admitting State’s Exhibit s 4, 5, and 6.

Suf fi ciency Appellant further claims that State’s Ex hibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 do not sufficie ntly link
him to the prior felony DWI convictions alleg ed in the enhanc ement para g raphs. Thus, he maintains,

I n fac t, appellant appear s to conce de such in his brief, stating that State’s Exhi bits 4 and 9 5 “appe ar[] to be proper ly authenticated[.] ” He does not addre ss or discuss the authenticity of State’s Ex hibit 6. 12the evidenc e was insufficient to enhanc e his punishment and he was improperly punished as a

habitual offe nder.

I n order “to establish that a defe ndant has been convicted of a prior offe nse, the State

must prove bey ond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prior conviction exis ts, and (2) the defe ndant is linked to that conviction.” Henry v. State , 509 S.W .3d 915, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Flowers v

. State , 220 S.W .3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). “No spe cific doc ument or mode of proof is require d to prove these two elements.” Id. Any ty pe of evi d en ce , d o cu m entar y or testimonial, might suffice

. Flowers , 220 S.W .3d at 922. The State may prove both of these elements
in a number of way s, including documentar y proof that contains sufficie nt information to establish both the exis tence of a prior conviction and the defe ndant’s identity as the person convicted. Id. at 921–22. For example, the State may introduce documents, admissions or stipulations, or testimonial evidenc e sufficie nt to prove that the defe ndant was convicted of the offe nses alleg ed in an enhanc ement alleg ation. Henry , 509 S.W .3d at 918; W ood v. State , 486 S.W .3d 583, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Flowers , 220 S.W .3d at 921–22.

I n deter mining whe t h er t h e enhance ment alleg ations are true, the trier of fac t must look at the totality of the evidenc e adduce d. Henry , 509 S.W .3d at 919; W ood , 486 S.W .3d at 589. The Court of Criminal Appea ls has observe d:

[O] rdinarily the proof that is adduce d to establish that the defendant o n trial is one and the same person that is named in an alleg ed prior criminal con v i ction or convictions closely rese mbles a jigsa w p u zz le. The piece s standing alone usually have littl e meaning

. Howeve r, when the piece s are fitted toge ther, they usually form the picture of the person who committed that alleg ed prior conviction or convictions.

13Flowers , 220 S.W .3d at 923 (quoti ng Human v. State , 749 S.W .2d 832, 835–36 (Tex. Crim. App.

1 9 88)); see Henry , 509 S.W .3d at 919; W ood , 486 S.W .3d at 589–90. “The trier of fac t fi t s t h e piece s of the jigsa

w puzz le toge ther and weig hs the cre dibilit y of eac h piece .” Flowers , 220 S.W .3d at 923; see H

enry , 509 S.W .3d at 919; W ood , 486 S.W .3d at 589–90. The hig h court e x plained,

Reg ardle ss of t he ty

pe of evidentiar

y puzz l e p i eces the S tate offers to establish the exis tence of a prior conviction and its link to a specific defe ndant, the trier of fac t deter mines if these piece s fit toge ther sufficie ntly to c omplete the puzz le. The trier of fac t looks at the totality of the evidenc e admitte d t o d et ermine 1) whether there was a previous conviction, and 2) whether the defe ndant was the person c onvicted. I f these two elements can be found bey ond a re asonable doubt, then the various piece s used to complete the puzz le are nece ssarily leg ally sufficie nt to pro v e a prior convic tion.

Flowers , 220 S.W .3d at 923; see W ood , 486 S.W .3d at 589–90. The factfinde r m ust consider the evidenc e as a whole, as eac h piece of evidenc e may provide littl e meaning if considere d in isolation. Henry , 509 S.W .3d at 919; see W ood , 486 S.W .3d at 589; Flowers , 220 S.W .3d at 923. The puzz le piece s befor e the trial c o u r t in this case included: two penitentiary packe ts (State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3), a stipulation of evidenc e and judgme nt of conviction (State’s Ex hibits 4 and 5), a judgme nt of conviction and a stipulation of evidenc e (State’s Ex hibit 6), and the stipulation of evide nce in support of

appellant’ s g uilty

plea to the instant off

ense. The documents in State’s Ex hibit 2 show that “D an i el C amar illo Gar cia,” a white

m ale with a date of birth of May 25, 1964, and identification numbers TDCJ /BPP# 07802 7 an d
DPS No. 0292977 0 , was convicted of felony DWI on J uly 14, 1993 in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause numbe r CR93-0327-A, for an off ense committed on

14Marc h 28, 1993. The fing erpr int car d in State’s Ex hibit 2 has the signature of the convicted person,

“Da niel C. Garc ia.”

The documents in Stat e’ s E x h i bit 3 show that “Da niel Camarillo Gar cia,” a white male with a date o f birth of May 25, 1964 and identification numbers TDCJ /BPP# 875782 and
DPS No. 02928770, was convicted of felony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997 in the 119th J udicial District
Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause number B- 96-0839-S, for an offe nse committed on October 10, 1993. The fing erpr int car d in State’s Ex hibit 3 has the signature of the convicted person, “Da niel Camarillo Gar cia,” and contains a ref ere nce to the offe nder’ s p arole violation in
BPP# 078027. Thus, State’s Ex hibits 2 and 3 ref lect that a person with the same first name, middle

name, l as t name, ge nder, race , date of birth, and one identification num ber was convicted of the 1 0
elevating DWI

convictions listed in the indictment: a f elony DWI conviction on J uly 14, 1993, in

cause number CR93-0327-A in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas and a felony DWI conviction on Aug ust 20, 1997, in cause num b er B- 96-0839-S in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas.

State’s Ex hibit 4 , a W aiver and Stipulati on of Evidenc e in cause number
B- 05-0830-S, signe d by “Da niel C. Gar cia” on September 14, 2005, ref lects that in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, “Da niel Gar cia” judicially confe ssed to committing the offe nse of felony DWI on or about April 5, 2005 in Tom Gre en County , Texas, and further stipulated

The BPP identification number ref lected in eac h pen packe t is identical. We note that the 1 0 DPS identification number is off by only one dig it. 15that he was previously convicted of felony DWI on August 20, 1997, in the 119th Judicial District

Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause number B- 96-0839-S, and on J uly 14, 1993, in the 51st
J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause numbe r CR-93-0327-A.

State’s Ex hibit 5, a j u d gment of conviction upon a g uilty plea, shows that “Da niel
Gar cia” was c onvicted of felony DWI on September 14, 2005, in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , T ex as , i n cause number B- 05-0830-S, for an offe nse committed on April 5, 2005. The fing erpr int pag e of State’s Ex hibit 5 ref lects that the rig ht thumb print of “Da niel Camarillo Gar cia” was take n on September 14, 2005.

Thus, State’s Ex hibits 4 and 5, taken toge ther, ref lect that the person named “Da niel
Gar cia” who was convicted of felony DW I on September 14, 2005, in the 119th J udicial District
Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause number B- 05-0830-S, for an offe nse committed on April 5, 2005, was also convicted of felony DWI on J uly 14, 1993, in cause number CR93-0327-A in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas and felony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997, in cause number B -96-0839- S in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas.

The documents in State’s Ex hibit 6 include a judgme nt showing t h at “Da niel Camarillo Gar cia AK A Danie l Garc ia” wa s convicted of felony DWI on May

28, 2010 in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause numbe r B- 09-0902-S, for

an off en s e committed on Aug ust 4, 2009. The exhibi t also contains a W aiver and Stipulati on of Evidenc e signe d by “Da

niel Gar cia” on May 28, 2010, which ref lects that “Da

niel Gar cia” judicially confe ssed to committing the offe nse of felony DWI on or about April 4, 2009 in Tom Gre en County , Texas, and further stipulated that he was previously convicted of felony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997,

16in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en C o u n t y , Texas, in cause number B- 96-0839-S,

and on J uly 14, 1993, in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texa s , i n ca u s e number CR93-0327-A.

T h u s , St ate’ s Ex hibit 6 ref

lects that the person named “Da niel Camarillo Gar ci a A K

A Daniel Ga

rcia ” who wa s convicted of felony DWI on May 28, 2010, was a lso convicted of f elony
DWI on J uly 14, 1993, in cause number CR93-0327-A in the 51st J udicial Di s t ri ct Court of
Tom Gree n County , Texas and fe lony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997, in cause number B -96-0839- S in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas.

Finally , in the instant case , sty led “The State of Texas vs. Daniel Camarillo Gar cia,”
ap p el l an t p l ed g uilty to felony DWI as char g ed in Parag raph One of the indictment and signed a W avier and Stipulati on of

Evidenc e . The stipulation was admitted into evidenc e at the plea hear ing, wi thout objection, and ref lects that appellant has a date of birth of May 25, 196 4 , an d an identifica t i o n n u m b er of SI D# TX 02928770. In the s tipulation, appellant judicially confe ssed t o committing the offe nse of felony DWI on or about September 12, 2 015, in Tom Gre en County , Texas, and further stipulated that he had been p re v i o u sly convicted of felony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997, in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause number
B- 96-0839-S, and on J uly 14, 1993, in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas, in cause number CR93-0327-A.

Take n toge ther, these documents ref lect that the same person who was convicted of felony DWI on J uly 14, 1993, in cause number CR93-0327-A in the 51st J udicial District Court of
Tom Gre en County , Texas and felony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997, in cause number B- 96-0839-S was

17also convicted of felony DWI on September 14, 2005 in cause number B- 05-0830-S i n t h e 1 19th

J udicial District Court o f T o m Gr een County , Texas, and felony DWI on May 28, 2010, in cause number B- 09-0902-SB in the 119th J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas. Not only did appellant plead g uilty to Parag raph One of the indictment, which included alleg ations of the 1993 and 1997 prior DWI convictions, appellant judicially confe ssed and stipulated that he was convicted of felony DWI on J uly 14, 1993, in cause number CR93-0327-A in the 51st J udicial District Court of Tom Gre en County , Texas and fe lony DWI on Aug ust 20, 1997, in c ause numbe r B -96-0839- S in the 119th J udicial Dis t ri ct C o u rt of Tom Gre en County , Texas. Fur ther, the trial court could
compar e the similarity

of the na mes and sig nature s of t he defenda nt—“Danie l Camarillo Gar cia,”
“Da niel C. Gar cia,” and “Da

niel Gar cia” —on the various documents in the exhibi ts. I n addition, the
pen packe ts contained photogr aphs that the trial court could compar e to appellant as he appea red in
open cour t during the plea pr ocee ding. Fitting all of the circ umstantial evidenc e piece s toge ther, these punishment exhibi ts sufficie ntly linked appellant to the prior convictions such that the trial court could conclude that the totality of the evidenc e admitted contained sufficie nt information to establish both the exis tence of the prior convictions alleg ed and appel l an t ’s identity as the person convicted. Acc ording ly , the evidenc e was sufficie nt to prove t h e enhanc ement alleg ations bey ond a rea sonable doubt and, there fore , to support appellant’s punishment as a habitual offe nder.

CONCLUSION Having conclude d that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ad m i t t i n g the complained- of punishment ex h i b its and that sufficie nt evidenc e supports appellant’ s enhanc ed

18punishment as a habitual offe nder, we overr ule appellant’ s s o l e p o i n t of err or and aff irm the trial court’s judg ment of convic tion.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and G oodwin
Affir med Filed: Jul y

27, 2017 Do Not Publish

19