C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS GU AD ALUP E C R

UZ, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 06 -0 02 94 -C R

Appea l from the 109th J udicial District Court of An dr e ws County , T e xas (TC# 4722)

O P I N I O N Guada lupe Cruz appeals his conviction for driving while intox icated ( DWI ), third or g reater off

ense, ha bitual offende r enha

nced by two previous DWIconvictions. He w as convic ted by a jury and sente nced to 48 year s confineme nt in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice and a fine of $10,000. Guada lupe Cruz was cha

rg ed with fe lony

driving while intox icated. SeeT EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 49.04 (Ve rnon 2003), § 49.09( b)(2) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Appellant stipulated to the two requisite prior c onvictions for fe lony DWI . The indictment conta ined enha nceme nt para g raphs
a lle g ingtw o o the r p ri or

fe lony c onvic tio ns fo r D WIin c a us e numbe r 1 40 4 in

19 83 and c a us e number 2523 in 1990 fr om the 109th J udicial District Court of Andre ws County . The jury found him guilty

of the c harg e. At the punishment phase of the trial, Appe llant entere d a plea of not true to the enhanc ement par ag raphs. The State called Sher iff Sam J ones, who ha d specia l training for fing erpr int identification, and showed him copie s of judg ments labeled State’ s Ex hibits 3, 4, 5, 8,-2-

and 9. The indictment only char g ed the c onvictions in cause number 1404, States Ex hibit 3, and 2523, State’s Exhi bit 5, for enha nceme nt purposes. Sheriff J ones fing erpr inted Appellant and
c omp are d th e m to the fi ng e rp ri nt o n th e jud g me nts and bo ok ingpa c ke ts r e late d to tho se judgme nts without a finge rprint. The judg ment for c ause numbe r 1404 did not have a fing erpr int identification on it. The judg ment for c ause numbe r 2523 did have the convicte d’s fing erpr int on it. Sheriff Jones testified that a booking packe t is created when a person is ag ain taken to jail and
c on ta ins inf

or matio n r e latin gto t

he c ha rg e s, and a ne w b oo kin gpa c ke t is c re ate d e ve ry tim e someone is taken to jail. Sheriff J ones testified that the A ppellant’s fing erpr ints matched the fing erpr ints in Ex hibit 5 on the judgment and the corr espondingbooking pa cket f or Exhibi t 3. Inh is s o le is s u e , Ap p e ll an t c o n te n d s th e e v id e n c e p r o v in go n e o f h is p r io r D WI convictions for e nhance ment purposes wa s leg ally insufficient. The standard of revie w is, after viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, whether a ny rational trier

of fac t could have f

ound the essential e lements of the c rime beyond a re asonable doubt. Jack son v. Vi rg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L .Ed.2d 560 (1979). I t is well settled that a prior c onviction may be esta blished by

cer tified copies of

a judgme nt and a se ntence and authe nticated c opies of the pe nitentiary rec ords including fing erpr ints, supported by expert testimony

identifying the m as matchingthose of the de fenda nt. Ro sa le s v . S tate , 867 S.W .2d 70, 72-3 (Te x .App.--E l Paso 1993, no pet.), c iti ng Be c k v . S tate , 719 S.W .2d 205, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). Whi le this is the mostcommon method used, there
are many differ ent way s to establish the prior convic tion. See Litt le s v . S tate , 726 S.W .2d 26, 31 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)(Opin. on re h’g ). The e ssential element in provingthe fa ct of a prior
c onvic tio n is e vid e nc e of

ide nti ty wh ic h is ind e pe nd e nt o f o r i n a dd iti on to t he e vid e nc e sh own in-3-

the penitentiar

y packe t. Zim me r v . S

tate , 9 89 S.W. 2d

48 , 5 0 ( Te x.Ap p. -- San A nto nio 19 98 , p e t. ref ’d), c iti ng Gr iff in v . S tate , 8 66 S.W. 2d

75 4, 75 6 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ty

le r 1 99 3, no pe t.) . Pr op e rl y
a uth e nti c ate d c op ie s o f j ud g me nts and se nte nc e s a

re a dmi ssi ble at tr ia l, b ut t he re le va nc e of tho se
re c or ds sh ow inga

pr ior c onvic tio n is c on dit ion e d u po n th e int

ro du c tio n o f e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o support a findingthat the def endant on tria l is the person who wa s previously convicted. Rosales , 867 S.W .2d at 72-3. In th e c a se be fo re us , w e have the te sti mony of She ri ff Jone s th at App e lla

nt’ s f ing e rp ri nts
m at c hth e f

i n g e r p r i n t s i na

b o o k i n gp a c k e ta s s o c i at e d w i thth e c h ar g e i nc a

u s e nu mb e r

1 4 0 4
. It was his opinion that the Guada lupe Cruz in the courtroom was the same Gua dalupe Cruz who
wa s c onvic te d in

the jud g me nt a

nd se nte nc e of

c a us e numbe r 1 40 4. Th e bo ok ingpa c ke t it se lf
was ne ver of

fer ed or a dmitted into evidence. While we have ce rtified copie s of the judg ment and sentenc e, ther e is no authenticated copy of the bookingpacke t in the rec ord. To esta blish a prior conviction in the manner

attempted by

the State, ce rtified copie s of a judg ment and a se ntence and authenticated copies of

the prison re cords includingfing erpr ints, supported by expert testimony identifying the m as identical with known prints of the de fenda nt must be introduced. Bec k, 7 19 S.W. 2d

at 20 9; Tim be rla k

e v . S tate , 711 S.W .2d 50, 51-2 (Te x .Crim.App. 1986). The only evidenc e pre sented in re g ards to the pr ior conviction at the punishment hea ring
wa s th e te sti mony

of She ri ff Jone s th at th e fi ng e rp ri nts fr om t he bo ok ing

pa c ke t a sso c iate d w ith
cause number 1404, whic h is not in evidence, matches those of the Appellant a

nd a judg ment and sentenc e convic ting a

person na

med Guada lupe Cruz of felony DWI . We do not have evide nce showing that the per son named in the judg ment for c ause numbe r 1404 is the same a s the person named in the bookingpacke t or who stood trial for this offe nse. While the identical name s-4-

indicate the pe rson is probably the same, pr obably

is not good e noug h when it is the critica l element be ing use d for e nhance ment. Zimmer , 9 89 S.W. 2d at 52 . Witho ut t

he bo ok ingpa c ke t in evidenc e, ther e is insufficient e vidence to link the defenda nt from the judg ment in cause number 1404 to the defe ndant who wa s on trial in this case. The State failed to mee t its burden of pr ov ingbe y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th e de fe nd ant’ s p ri or c onvic tio n. We s us ta in A pp e lla nt’ s sole issue. We theref ore r ever se the portion of the judgme nt assessingpunishment and the sentenc e, and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t for a ne w trial on the issue of punishment only
. See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . 44.29(b)( Ver non Supp. 2008).

Fe bruar y 26, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. C arr, J
. (N o tP art i ci p at i n g) McClure, J., C oncurr ing (Publish)
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N Chief J ustice Chew f

inds that the evidenc e is leg ally insufficient to support the jury ’s “true ” findingto one of the e nhance ment para g raphs a nd rema nds for a new punishment hea

ring
. Iag ree that the evidenc e is leg ally insufficient to prove the cha lleng ed enha nceme nt para g raph, b u tIwr i t e s ep ar at el y

t o ex p l ai nm y

re as o n i n g. To establish that a de fenda nt has bee n convicted of

a prior of fense , the State must prove be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th at ( 1) a

pr ior c onvic tio n e xists , a

nd (2 ) t he de fe nd ant i s li nk e d to-5-

that conviction. Flowe rs v . S tate , 2 20 S.W. 3d

91 9, 92 1 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). No sp e c if ic document or mode of proof is require d to prove these two elements. Id . T he re is n o “ be st evidenc e” r

ule in Texas that require s that the fac t of a prior conviction be pr oven with any document, much less a

ny specific document. Id . Whil e evide nce of a ce rtified copy

of a f inal judgme nt and sentenc e may be a pr efe rre d and conve nient means, the State ma y prove both of these e lements in a number of differ ent way s, including ( 1) the de fenda nt’s admission or stipulation, (2) testimony by a per son who was pr esent whe n the per son was convic ted of the sp e c if ie d c ri me and

c an id e nti fy

the de fe nd ant a s th at pe rs on , o r ( 3) do c ume nta ry pr oo f, su c h a s a judgme nt, that contains sufficie nt information to establish both the exi stence of a pr ior conviction and the de fenda nt’s identity

as the pe rson convicte d. Id . at 921-22. The se methods of provingthe final c onviction are not exclusi ve. Se e Litt le s v . S tate , 726 S.W .2d 26, 32 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)(over ruling any

case holding that ther e ar e exclusive manner s of proof of a defe ndant’s identity

as to prior fe lonies used for e nhance ment). Any ty pe of e vidence , documentar

y or testimonial, might suffic e. Flowe rs , 220 S.W .2d at 922. The trie r of f act looks at the totality

of the e vidence admitted to determine ( 1) whe ther ther e wa s a pre vious conviction, and (2) whether

the def endant wa s the person c onvicted. Id . at 92 1- 22 . I f t he se tw o e le me nts can be found beyond a re asonable doubt, then the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt to prove a pr ior conviction. Id
. In addition to the two prior DWIconvictions alleg ed for jurisdictional purposes, the ind ic tme nt c on ta ine d tw o o the r e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra ph s, wh ic h r e a d a s f

oll ow s: And it is further pr esente d in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the afor esaid off ense ( here afte r styled the primar y offe nse), on the 30th day of August, 1983, in cause number 1404 in the 109th J udicial DistrictThe mea ning of this testim ony

is not entirely

clea r but it appea

rs the prose cutor 1 intended to ask Sherif

f Jones to compare Appe llant’s fing erpr ints with t he fing erpr int contained in the judgme nt. The judg ment in cause number 1404 doe s not contain a fing erpr int. -6- Court of Andre ws County , Texas, the defe ndant was c onvicted of the felony offe nse of Dr iving While Intox icated; And it is further pr esente d in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the primary offe nse, and a fter the conviction in cause number 1404 wa s f ina l, t he de fe nd ant c omm itt e d th e fe lon y of fe ns e of Dr ivi ngWhil e Intox icated a

nd was c onvicted on the 24th day of Oc tober, 1990, in ca

use number 2523 in the 109th J udicial District Court of Andre ws County , Texas . . . . Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to p ro ve the pr ior c onvic tio n in
cause number 2523. The ref ore, it is unnece ssary

to addre ss the sufficie ncy of the e vidence supporting the jury ’s findingof true ma de with re spect to that par ag raph. In o rd e r t o p ro ve the c ha lle ng e d e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra ph , th e State int

ro du c e d into evidenc e a c ertified c opy

of the judg ment and sente nce in c ause numbe r 1404 (State’ s Ex hibit 3). State ’s Exhi bit

3 is le g a lly

su ff ic ie nt t o p ro ve that th e re wa s a pr e vio us c onvic tio n a s a lle g e d in the fi rs t e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra ph . T he on ly

re ma ini ngqu e sti on

is whe the r t

he e vid e nc e is l e g a lly
su ff ic ie nt t o p ro ve that App e lla nt i s th e same pe rs on

wh o w a s p re vio us ly

c onvic te d in

c a us e number 1404. She ri ff Sam Jone s te sti fi e d f

or the State a s a

fi ng e rp ri nt e xpe rt . H e e xpla ine d th at a booking pa cket is cr eate d ever y time a per son is arre sted for a criminal off

ense. Ea ch booking packe t contains the def

endant’ s information, the cha rg e, medica l information, mug shots, and fing erpr ints. S heriff

J ones testified he had fing erpr inted Appellant but he did not spec ify when or whe re. H e conf

irmed that the prose cutor ha d asked him to “matc h the fing erpr int identification fr om the J udg ement of its pre sent to the defe ndant.” I f the judg ment did not 1 contain a f

inge rprint, the prose cutor ha d asked him to look into the booking pa cket a nd he had-7-

do ne that. T he fo llo wi nge xch ang e the n o c c ur re d b e tw e e n th e pr os e c uto r a nd She ri ff Jone s: [P rosec utor]: Sheriff Jones, I ’m showingy ou what’s be en mar ked for ide nti fi c atio n p ur

po se s is [sic ] State ’s Exhi bit 3. I t’ s Ca

us e N o . 1 4 0 4 , e n ti tl e d

T h e St ate o f

T e xa s v s . G u a d a lu

p e G ar za Cruz in t he 109th J udicial District Court of Andre ws County , Texas. Did y ou have a n opportunity

to reviewthe booking pa cket a ssociated with this char g e? [S heriff J ones]: Idid. [P rosec utor]: And did y ou compar e the infor mation in the booking pa cket with the information that was g iven to y ou from Mr. Cruz duri ngCourt ? [S heriff J ones]: Yes, sir. [P rosec utor]: And did it match? [S heriff J ones]: Yes, it did. [P rosec utor]: And in y our opinion, is the Guadalupe Cruz in t he

courtroom today

the same Guadalupe Cruz who was convicted in this J udg ement and Sente nce in Cause No. 1404? [S heriff J ones]: Yes, sir. Chief J ustice Chew f

inds the evidenc e insuffic ient beca use the bookingpacke t was not offe red into evide nce. B ut the Court of Criminal Appeals made it clear in Flowe rs that no specific form of pr oof is require d. Consequently , Iwould not find the evidenc e insuffic ient sim ply be c a us e the bo ok ingpa c ke t w a s n ot i ntr od uc e d into e vid e nc e . T he pr ob le m in thi s c a se is that there is no testimony that the bookingpacke t associated w ith cause numbe r 1404 conta ined the ar rested pe rson’s fing erpr ints or that Sheriff Jones compare d those fing erpr ints to t he known prints of Appellant. Sherif f Jones testified ge nera lly about the bookingproce dure but he did not testify that the proc edure was spec ifically followed in ca

use number 1404 or

that a fing erpr int-8-

car d was c ontained in that bookingpacke t. Furthe r, the prose cutor a sked Sheriff J ones whe ther he ha d c omp are d “ the inf or matio n in the bo ok ingpa c ke t w iththe inf or matio n th at w a s g ive n to [hi m] from Mr. Cruz duringCourt” but he did not specify that he compa

red the known fing erpr ints of Appellant with a fing erpr int card c ontained in the bookingpacke t. Thus, Sheriff J ones’ testimony

that the “infor

mation matched” is leg ally insufficient to prove beyond a
re a so na ble do ub t th at App e lla

nt i s th e same pe rs on

wh o w a s c onvic te d o f d

ri vin gwh ile intox icated on the 30th day of August 1983, in cause number 1404 in the 109th J udicial District Court of Andre ws County , Texas. Se e Zim me r v . S tate , 9 89 S.W. 2d

48 (T e x.Ap p. -- San A nto nio 19 98 , p e t. r e f’ d) . F or

the se re a so ns , I

c on c ur in C hie f Jus tic e Che w’ s o pin ion that th e e vid e nc e is leg ally insufficient to prove the prior c onviction alleg ed in the third enha nceme nt para g raph, a

nd there fore , the judg ment as to punishment should be reve rsed a nd rema nded for a new trial on punishment only
. SeeT EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . 44.29(b)( Ver non Supp. 2008).

Fe bruar y 26, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice