## CO URT OF A PPEALS SEC OND D I STR I CTOF T E XAS FORT WORTH NO
. 2- 08- 233- CR
GUI L L E R M O L UGO AP P E L L ANT V
. TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA L DI STRI CT CO URT NO
. 4 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OP I NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A ppe l l antG ui l l er m o L ugo a ppe al s hi s co n v i c t i on for m urder
. I n f i ve i ss ues , Lu go a rgue s t hatt he t r i al co ur ter red by a dm i tti ng t r i al t es t i m ony rega rdi ng hi s st at em entm ade t o pol i ce ; t hatt he evi den ce i s l ega l l y a nd fac t ual l y i ns uf

f i ci entt o s us t ai n hi s con vi ct i on; an d t hat t he t r i al cou r ter red by ove r r ul i ng hi s obj ec t i on t o a puni sh m ent
- enh an c em entpa ragraph i n t he i n d i c tm e n t. W e w i l l a ffir m .II. B ACKGROUND

O n Novem ber

21, 2002 , For t W or t h Pol i ce O f f i ce r Rober tPres ney w ent t o a lo c al m otel t o i nv esti ga t e a h om i ci de
. Presn ey fou nd Ernes t o D el ga di llo ly in g fa c e d o w n o n t h e f lo o r o f a m o t e l ro o m w it h a f a t a l b u lle tw o u n d in h is bac k. Pres ney l ea r ned t hat D el gad i l l o w as not t he regi st ered occ upa nt of t he room . Af t er

s ec ur i ng a s ea rch w ar rant , Pres ney se arche d t he room and found f ur t her ev i den ce t hat a h o m i c i de had oc cur red. Fo r tW or t h Pol i ce D et ec t i ve Thom as B o e tche r

ar r i ved an d a l so s ea rche d t he room . Dur i ng hi s se arch, Bo et cher

di scovered p a y st ubs w i t h Lugo ’ s nam e on t hem
. Boetcher t hen obt ai ned an ar res tw ar rantfor Lu go, butLu go c oul d notbe l oca t ed. D uri ng hi s i nv esti ga t i on , B oe t ch e r i ntervi ew ed M arqu i t a S an ch ez. S a n c h e z sa i d th a t sh e h a d g o n e to th e m o tel roo m o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 , to s e ll L u g o d r u g s . S h e a ls o s a id t h a t s h e h a d s e e n L u g o c a r r y a .3 8 re v o lv e r

in t he past
. She st at ed t hatw hen she ar r i ved att he m ot el room , D el gadi l l o w as k n o c k in g o n it s d o o r . A c c o rd in g t o S a n c h e z , L u g o le t h e r in b u td id n o tin it ia lly al l ow D el gadi l l o t o ent er . W hi l e t hey car r i ed out a dr ug deal , San chez sai d t hat D el gad i l l o c ont i nue d t o de m and t hatLu go l ethi m i n by persi st ent l y kno ck i ng on t he d o o r a n d v e r b a l l y i n s i s t i n g t o b e l e t i n . L u g o e v e n t u a l l y l e t D e l g a d i l l o i n. S a n c h e z s a id t h a tD e lg a d illo s o o n b e g a n b e g g in g L u g o fo r d r u g s . S a n c h e z s a id t he t w o be gan t o a rgue . Sanc hez s ai d t hatD el gad i l l o a l l ow ed Lug o t o be aton h i m d e s p i te h i s s u p e ri o r s tre n g th b e c a u s e h e “ w a n t[e d ] th e d ru g s s o b a d [l y ].” By Sanc hez’s a cc ount , Lu go a nd Del gad i l l o be gan t o w res t l e o ver a gun— ah a n d g u n c o n s i s te n t w i th th e . 3 8 re v o l v e r S a n c h e z h a d s e e n L u g o c a rry

previ ous l y. W or r i ed t hatt he quar rel m i ght le a d to her bei ng caug htw i t h dr ugs, S an c h e z grabbed her t hi ngs and w al ked t ow ard t he doo r . A tt hatt i m e, D el gad i l l o w as on h i s kne es . As Sanc hez rea che d t he d o o r, s he hea rd a guns hot
. She t ur ned ba ck around and s aw D el gad i l l o fal l i ng fac e f or w ard a nd L u g o h o l d i n g the g u n . S a n c h e z sa i d sh e ran fro m th e m o tel roo m a n d g o t i n to her ca r . As sh e prepa red t o l ea ve, sh e sa w Lug o and t w o gi r l s r un dow n t he s ta i rs a nd ge ti nt o a t r uck
. She t hen s aw Lu go go ba ck up t he st ai rs br i ef l y, ret ur n t o t he t r uck w i t h a bl ac k d uf f l e b ag, an d dr i ve aw ay. M o re t h a n f iv e y e a rs a ft e r t h e in it ia l in v e s t ig a t io n , F o r t W o r t h P o lic e c o ld ca se f i l e Det ec t i ve M ann y Rey es f l ew t o Col um bus , O hi o, t o i nt er vi ew Lu go, w h o had been ap prehend ed and w as bei ng detai ned. I ni t i al l y, Lugo den i ed bei ng i n For tW or t h att he t i m e of t he m ur der; butLugo even t ual l y adm i t t ed t hathe w as i n t he m ot el room w hen t he m urder oc c u rre d; t hats om e o f t he it e m s fo u n d in t h e m o t e l ro o m d u r in g t h e m u rd e r in v e s t ig a t io n b e lo n g e d t o h im ; and t hathe drove a t r uck att he t i m e of t he m urder
. The St at e i ndi ct ed Lug o for t he m urder

of D el gad i l l o. The i ndi ct m ent i ncl ude d t w o fel ony enh anc em ent paragraphs. L u g o m o v e d to h a v e h i s s ta te m e n t to R e y e s s u p p re s s e d
. T h e tri a l c o u rt den i ed t he m ot i on. Lug o al so m ade num erous obj ec t i ons , m any of w hi ch t he t r i al cour tsust ai ned, t o por t i ons of hi s recor ded st at em entbei ng adm i t t ed— som uch so t hatt he pr osecut or , Lugo’ s counsel , and t he tr ia l c o ur tdet er m i ned

th a t th e b e s t c o u rs e o f a c ti o n w a s to a l l o w th e p ro s e c u to r to d e v e l o p L u g o ’s st a t e me n tt h ro u g h q u e s t i o n i n g R e y e s , ra t h e r t h a n a l l o wi n g t h e re c o rded st at em entt o a ct ual l y be pl aye d for t he j ur y. D u ri ng t he t r i a l , Re ye s t e s t i f i e d a bo utp or t i on s o f L ug o’ s s t a t e m e n t. S peci f i cal l y, Rey es t est i f i ed t hatLugo had i ni t i al l y denie d b e in g att he m ot el room w hen D el gad i l l o w as m urdered, butl at er i n t he i nt er

vi ew adm i t t ed t hathe
w a s in t h e m o t e l ro o m a t t h e t im e o f t h e s h o o t in g ; t h a th e h a d b e e n t h e v ic t im of an at t em pt ed robbe r y; an d t hat al t hough he had hea rd a s hotf i red dur i ng t he al l eged r obb er

y, he di d not shoot anyon e. R e y e s a l so t est i f i ed t hathe had t ake n b u c c a l s w abs of Lugo du r i ng t he i nt er vi ew . The S t at e i nt rodu ced evi den ce t hatD N A f rom t hes e s w abs m at che d DN A t ak en f rom t he m ot el room w here Del gad i l l o w as m urdered. The St at e a l so ca l l ed Sanch ez as i t s ke y w i t nes s, an d sh e t es t i f i ed t o t he con t ent s of

he r s t at em entm ade t o Boet che r . M arc Krous e o f t he Tar rant C ount y Dist r i ctM edi ca l Exa m i ner ’ s of f i ce t es t i f i ed t hatD el gad i l l o di ed of i n te rn a l b l e e d i n g fro m a c o n t a c t -ra n g e g u n s h o t w o u n d a n d th a t D e l g a d i l l o ’s k n e e s h a d b r u is in g a n d s c ra p in g c o n s is t e n tw it h a s c e n a r io w h e re D e lg a d illo
w as kn ee l i ng w hen he w as sh ot . M i cha el W ard, a se ni or forens i c s ci ent i stfor t he For tW or t h Po l i ce D epar t m entC r i m e Labor at ory, t est i f i ed t hatt he bul l ett hat k i l l e d D e l g a d i l l o w a s a .3 8 p ro j e c ti l e th a t w a s l i k e l y fi re d fro m a .3 8 re v o l v e r.A j ury foun d L u g o g u i l t y and assessed puni shm entatt w ent y- f i ve years’

con f i nem ent . Thi s app ea l fol l ow ed.

III. A RT I C L E 38. 22 AND L UG O ’ S S TAT EMENT I n hi s se con d i ss ue, Lu go a rgue s t hatt he t r i al c o u rt e r red by a l l ow i ng Reye s t o t e s t i f

y a b o u ts t a t e me n t s L u g o ma d e t o R e y e s d u r i n g i n t e r ro g a t i on. The focu s of

Lu go’ s argum enti s t hatRe y e s ’s b ei ng a l l ow ed t o t es t i f y a bout in fo r m a t io n c o n t a in e d w it h in L u g o ’s s t a t e m e n t , r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t a t e m e n tit s e lf bei ng adm i t t ed, vi ol at ed t he st at ut ory requi rem entt hati n or der for a cust odi al s t a t e m e n tt o b e a d m it t e d a tt r ia l, itm u s tb e re d u c e d t o w r it in g o r e le c t ro n ic a lly re c o rd e d
. S ee T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .2 2 , § 3 (a )(1 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). W e concl ude t hatLugo fai l ed t o pr eser ve t hi s com pl ai ntfor our revi ew . T o p res e rve a c o m p l a i n t fo r o u r rev i e w , a p a rt y m u st h a v e p res e n ted to t h e t r ia l c o u r ta t im e ly re q u e s t , o b j e c t io n , o r m o t io n t h a ts t a t e s t h e s p e c if ic grounds for

t he des i red r ul i ng i f t hey are n otap parentf rom t he con t extof t he re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T e x . R
. A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); M o sley v . S tate , 983 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cer t . deni ed , 526 U. S. 107 0 ( 199 9)
. Fur t her , t he t r i al cou r t m us tha ve r ul ed on t he requ es t , obj ec t i on, or m ot i on, ei t her

ex pres sl y or

i m pl i ci t l y, or

t he com p l a i n i n g par t y m us tha ve o bj e c te d to th e tri a l c o u rt’s re fu s a l to ru l e . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ); M endez
v . S tate , 138 S. W
. 3d 334 , 341 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. 200 4)
. A nd th e c o m p l ai nt m ade on a ppe al m us tco m por tw i t h t he com pl ai nt m ade i n t he t r i al co ur tor t he e rro r i s fo rfe i te d
. H e i d e l b e rg v . S tate , 144 S. W
. 3d 535 , 537 (Tex. C r i m . A pp.2 0 0 4 ); V a fai y a n v . S tate , 279 S. W
. 3d 374, 383 (Te x. App
. — Fo r tW or t h 2008,

p e t. re f’d ). A l t hough Lu go ob

j ec t ed t o t he adm i ss i on of por t i ons of hi s st at em entan d al so obj ec t ed t hat hi s st at em ent w as t he produc t of pol i ce coe rc i o n , n o n e of t hes e o bj ec t i ons co m por tw i t h t he com pl ai nt he now br i ngs on a ppe al
— t hatt he tr i a l co u rterred b y all o w i n g R e y e s to tes ti fy a b o u t state m e n ts L u g o m a d e to R eyes dur i ng i nt er rogati on. Becau se t he com pl ai nt Lugo now m akes on appeal does not com por t w i t h any com pl ai nt m ade t o t he t r i al cour t , he has f orfei t ed th i s e rro r, i f a n y . S ee H e i d e l b e rg , 144 S. W
. 3d at 537 ( hol di ng t hatde fend ant fai l e d to p res e rve for a p p e l l a te rev i e w c o m p l a i n t th a t p ros e c u to r’ s u se o f po star restsi l ence agai nstd e fe n dant vi ol at ed t he T exas C onst i t ut i on becau se c o m p la in td id n o tc o m p o r tw it h d e fe n d a n t ’s t r ia l c o u r to bje c t io n b a s e d s o le ly on t he federal C onst i t ut i on)
. W e over r ul e Lugo’ s second i ssue.

I V. V OLUNT ARI NESS OF L UG O ’ S S TAT EMENT In h is f irs tis s u e , L u g o a rg u e s t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u r te r re d b y d e n y in g h is m ot i o n t o s u p p re s s a n d a l l o wi n g — t h ro u g h R e y e s ’ s t e s t i mo n y — h i s s t a t e me nt t o be adm i t t ed at t r i al
. Lug o argue s t hat Reye s “s t epp ed ove r t he l i n e an d c o e rc e d ” L u g o ’s s t a t e m e n t . A lt h o u g h in h is b r ie f L u g o c o m b in e s t h e a n a ly s is of hi s f i rstand second i ssues ( t he second i ssue t hat w e have al ready hel d w as notpres e rv e d ), th e gi stof Lu go’ s f i rsti ss ue i s t hathi s st at em entw as m ade i nvolu n ta ril y because of rem ar ks Reyes m ade t o Lugo dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew . T h u s , th e s i g n i fi c a n c e o f L u g o ’s fi rs t i s s u e i s w h e th e r R e y e s ’s re m a rk s o v e rb o ret he vol untar i ness of Lugo’ s st at em ent . W e agree w i t h t he t ria l cour tt hat L u g o ’s s ta te m e n t w a s “ v o l u n ta ri l y g i v e n .” W e revi ew a t r i al cour t ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess evi dence un der a b i fu rc a te d s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . A m a d o r v . S tate , 221 S
. W
. 3d 666, 673 (Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); G u zm a n v . S tate , 955 S
. W
. 2d 85, 89 (Tex. Cr i m . A p p. 199 7)
. W e g i ve al m os tt ot al de ferenc e t o a t r i al co ur t ’ s r ul i ngs on q ue s ti ons of hi st or i cal factan d appl i cat i on- of
- l aw - t o- factquest i ons t hatt ur n on an e v a l u a ti o n o f cred i b i l i ty a n d d e m e a n o r, b u t w e rev i e w d e n o v o ap p l i c a ti o n -ofl a w -to -fa c t q u e s ti o n s th a t d o n o t tu rn o n c r e d i b i l i ty a n d d e m e a n o r. A m ado r , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 7 3 ; E strad a v . S tate , 154 S
. W
. 3d 604, 607 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ); J o h n so n v . S tate , 6 8 S .W .3 d 6 4 4 , 6 5 2
– 5 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). Th e det er m i nat i on of w he th e r a confes si on i s vol untar y i s based on an exa m i nat i on of

t he t ot al i t y of

t he ci rcum st anc es s ur roundi ng i t s ac qui si t i on. R e e d v . S tate , 5 9 S .W .3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 1 , p e t. re f’d ). A confes si on i s i nvol untar y i f ci rcum st ances show t hat t he defendan t ’ s w i l l w as

“ o v e rb o rn e ” b y p o l i c e c o e rc i o n . C rea g e r v . S tate , 952 S. W
. 2d 852 , 856 ( Tex. C ri m . A pp. 1997 )
. I n ot her w ords , t he st at em enti s i nvol unt ar y i f t he rec o rd ref l ec t s “o f

f i ci al , co erci ve con duc tof s uch a n a ture” t hatan y s t at em ent obt ai ned t hereby i s “u nl i ke l y t o ha ve bee n t he produc tof an es se nt i al l y f ree an d unco nst rai ned cho i ce by i t s m aker
. ” A l v a rad o v . S tate , 912 S. W
. 2d 199, 211 (Tex
. C r i m . A pp. 19 95 )
. A defendan t ’ s st at em entm ustnothave been ob t ai ned b y th e i n fl u e n c e o f h o p e o r fe a r. C reager , 952 S. W
. 2d at856 ( ci t i ng C ai n v.S tate , 18 Tex. 38 7, 39 0 ( 18 57 ) )
. Even t r i cker y or decept i on do es notm ake a st at em enti nvol untar y un l ess t he m et hod w as cal cul at ed t o pr odu ce an u n tru th fu l c o n fe s s i o n o r w a s o ffe n s i v e to d u e p ro c e s s . Id
. at856 ( ci t i ng D o tse y v . S tate , 6 3 0 S .W .2 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 9 (T e x . A p p .— A u s t i n 1 9 8 2 , n o p e t.)). T h e u l ti m a te q u e s ti o n i s w h e th e r th e s u s p e c t’s w i l l w a s o v e rb o rn e . Id
. (ci t i ng A rm stro n g v . S tate , 7 1 8 S .W .2 d 6 8 6 , 6 9 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 )). Lugo cl ai m s t hathi s st at em entt o R eyes w as coerced because R eyes m ade t w o rem ar ks t o hi m dur i ng i nt er roga t i on. Fi rst , Reye s as ke d L ugo, “ [ W ] hy don ’ tyou j ustt el l m e . . . t he t r ut h a b o u t w hathappen ed and see i f w e can prove w hat you say?” S econd , R eyes m ade t he st at em ent t o Lugo , “I sw ear to you t hatI w i l l do w hat eve r I ca n w i t h t he evi den ce , w i t h w i t nes se s[ , ] or w hat eve r , w i th t he l abo rat or y, w hat eve r

t o prove w hatyou t ol d m e i s t he t r ut h. ” Lugo provi des no ar gum entas t o how t hese rem ar ks p ro d u c e d an u n t r u t h f u l c o n fe s s io n , w e re o f fe n s iv e t o d u e p ro c e s s , o r o t h e r w is e c a u s e d h is
w i l l t o be over b or ne. W e concl ude t hatt hese st at em ent s di d not over bear Lu g o ’s w i l l an d t hatLu go’ s st at em entt o Reye s w as es se nt i al l y a f ree an d unc ons t rai ned ch oi ce . I f an yt hi ng, Reye s’ s rem ar ks co nve yed a se ns e t hatt he
v e ra c i ty o f

L u g o ’s s ta te m e n t w o u l d e v e n tu a l l y b e d i s c o v e re d
. See Gom es v. S tate , 9 S
. W
. 3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 7
– 7 8 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] 1 9 9 9 , p e t. re f’d ) (rea s o n i n g th a t d e fe n d a n t’s w i l l w a s n o t o v e rb o rn e b y i n te rro g a to r’s rem ark s th a t con vey ed “a s ens e o f i nev i t abi l i t y” t hatt he t r ut hf ul nes s of d e fe n d a n t ’s s t a t e m e n t s w o u ld b e d is c o v e re d ). W e h o ld t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u r td idn o te r r

b y d e n y in g L u g o ’s m o t io n t o s u p p re s s h is s t a t e m e n t , a n d w e o v e r r u le Lugo ’ s f i rsti ssue. V. S UF F I C I EN C Y OF T HE E VIDENCE I n hi s t hi rd and four t h i ss ues , Lug o argue s t hatt he evi den ce i s l ega l l y a nd fact ual l y i nsuff i ci entt o conv i cthi m of m ur der
. S peci f i cal l y, Lugo con t ends t hat t he onl y eyew i t ness w ho te s tifie d “i s t ot al l y unb el i evabl e” because she i s a con vi ct ed fel on, he r

rec ol l ec t i on of t he m urder “c han ged m any t i m es , ” and s he a d m i tted u n d e r cro ss -ex a m i n a ti o n tha t sh e “w a s n o t c o m p l e tel y tr u th fu l ” w i th t he l ea d de t ec t i ve dur i ng t he pol i ce i nve st i gat i on. A
. Law on M urder A pe rso n c om m i ts m u rd er i f he i nt ent i ona l l y or

kn ow i ngl y c aus es t he deat h of

an i ndi vi dual or

i nt ends t o cause ser i ous bod i l y i nj ury and com m i t s an a c tc le a r ly d a n g e ro u s t o h u m a n life t h a tc a u s e s t h e d e a t h o f a n in d iv id u a l. T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 9 .0 2 (b )(1 )– (2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).

i
. Legal Su f

f i ci ency R evi ew I n revi ew i ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y of t he evi den ce t o s uppor ta con vi ct i on, w e v ie w a ll of t he ev i de nc e i n t he l i gh t m os t fav orab l e t o t he prose cu t i on in order t o d e t er m i ne w het her an y rat i ona l t r i er

of fac tco ul d ha ve found t he e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Jac ks on v . V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S
. C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); C l a y to n v . S tate , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).T h i s s tan d a rd g i v e s fu l l p l a y to th e res p o n sibi l i ty o f t h e tr i e r of fac t t o

resol v e c o n f l i ct s i n t he t est i m ony, t o w ei gh t he evi dence, and t o dr aw re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e s fro m b a s i c fa c ts to u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jac ks on , 44 3 U
. S
. at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; C l ayt on , 235 S
. W
. 3d at 778
. The t r i er of fac ti s t he s o l e j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i ty o f th e e v i d e n c e . S ee T e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4 (V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); B row n v . S tate , 270 S. W
. 3d 564, 568 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 12 9 S
. C t . 20 75 (2 00 9)
. Thu s, w hen perfor m i ng a l ega l s uf f i ci enc y revi ew , w e m ay notre- eva l uat e t he w ei ghtan d c re d i b i l i ty o f th e e v i d e n c e a n d s u b s ti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e w b e rr

y v . S tate , 4 S .W .3 d 7 3 5 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 3 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ). I n s te a d , w e “ d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e n e c e s s a ry in fe re n c e s a re re a s o n a b le b a s e d u p o n t h e c o m b in e d a n d c u m u la t iv e fo rc e o f a ll t he evi dence w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ost favor abl e t o t he verdi ct . ” H oop er v . S tate , 2 1 4 S
. W
. 3 d 9 , 1 6
– 1 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 7 )
. We mu s tp re s u me t hatt he fa c tfin der res ol ved an y c onf l i ct i ng i nferenc es i n favo r of t he p ro s e c u ti o n a n d d e fe r to th a t re s o l u ti o n . Jac ks on , 4 4 3 U .S
. a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S
. C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; C l ayt on , 235 S. W
. 3d a t778.

i i
. Legal l y S uff i ci entEvi dence V i e w i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e v e rd i c t, th e re c o rd dem onst rat es t hatt her e w as l egal l y suf f i ci entevi de n ce t hatLugo m ur der ed D e l g a d i l l o . T h e p o l i c e fo u n d D e l g a d i l l o , m u rd e re d , i n L u g o ’s m o te l ro o m . T h e re w as evi dence t hatLugo occup i ed t he m ot el room because hi s personal i t em s,paperw or k, and D N A w ere foun d t here. Lugo adm i t t ed t o R eyes t hathe w as

i n t he room w hen D el gad i l l o w as m urdered. There w as t es t i m o n y th atLu go and D el gad i l l o foughtove r a . 38 revo l ver m om ent s bef ore Del gad i l l o w as ki l l ed. The l ea d w i t nes s t es t i f i ed t hats he had s ee n L ugo c arry a .3 8 rev ol ver i n t he past . T h e b u l l ett hatki l l ed D el gadi l l o w as a . 38 cal i ber bul l et . Sanch ez s aw D el gad i l l o on hi s kne es i m m edi at el y be fore s he hea rd a g u ns hot
. Af t er s he h e ard t he gun shot , San chez t est i f i ed t hatshe saw Lugo po i nt i ng a gun at D el gad i l l o a nd Del gad i l l o fal l i ng for w ard. Po l i ce found D el gad i l l o fac e d ow n w i t h a fat al guns hotw ound t o hi s bac k. There w a s a l s o te s t i m ony by t he m edi ca l ex am i ner

t hatD el gad i l l o di ed of a con t ac t
- rang e g uns hot w o u n d a nd t h a tD e lg a d illo ’s k n e e s h a d b r u is in g a n d s c ra p in g c o n s is t e n tw it h a s c e n a r io
w h e re D e l g a d i l l o w a s k n e e l i n g w h e n h e w a s s h o t. V i e w i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e j u ry ’s v e rd i c t, w e hol d t hata rat i onal t r i er of fact coul d have foun d t hat t he evi dence at t r i al w as s u fficie n t to e s ta b l i s h th e e l e m e n ts o f m u rd e r b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. S ee Jac ks on , 4 4 3 U .S
. a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S
. C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; C l ayt on , 235 S. W
. 3d a t778; se e a l so Tex. Pen al Code A n n . § 1 9. 02( b) ( 1) –( 2) ( provi di ng e l em ent s of m u rd e r). A c c o rd i n g l y , w e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i s l e g a l l y s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt Lugo ’ s convi ct i on. W e over r ul e Lugo’ s four t h i ssue.

i i i
. Fact ual Su f

f i ci ency R evi ew W h e n re vi e w i ng t he fa c t ua l s uf f i c i e nc y of t he e vi de nc e t o s up p o rt a con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den ce i n a ne ut ral l i ght , favo r i ng ne i t her pa r t y.N e a l v . S ta te , 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 129

S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); W a tso n v . S tate , 204 S. W
. 3d 404 , 414 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 6)
. W e t hen as k w het her t he evi den ce s uppor t i ng t he con vi ct i on, al t hough le g a lly s u f

f ic ie n t , is n e v e r t h e le s s s o w e a k t h a t t h e fa c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is c le a r ly w ro n g a n d m a n ife s t ly u n ju s to r w h e t h e r

c o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g re a t ly o u tw e i g h s th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e fa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n i s m a n i fe s tl y u n j u s t. L a n c o n v . S tate , 2 5 3 S. W
. 3d 699, 704 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W a t so n , 20 4 S
. W
. 3d at41 4– 15 , 41 7. To r everse unde r t he se con d ground, w e m us tde t er m i ne, w i t h s om e obj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he rec ord, t hatt he grea tw ei ghtan d prepo nde ra n ce of al l t he evi den ce , t hough l e g a l l y s u fficie n t, c o n tra d i c ts th e v e rd i c t. W at so n , 204 S. W
. 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r t h e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev er t hel es s su ppor t ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f re a so n a b le d o u b t t o over t ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id
. W e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e t h a t a c o n v ic t io n is c le a r ly
w ro n g o r

m a n ife s t ly u n ju s t s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if fe re n t ly t h a n t h e ju r

y o r b e c a u s e w e d is a g re e w it h t h e ju r y ’s re s o lu t io n o f

a c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id
. W e m ay nots i m pl y s ubs t i t ut e o ur j udg m e n t for

t he fa c tfin d e r’s . J o h n so n v . S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); C a in
v . S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n l e s s t h e re c o rd c l e a rl y re v e a l s th a t a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i s a p p ro p ri a te , w e m u s t d e fe r to th e j u ry ’s det er m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven con t radi ct ory t est i m oni al evi denceb e c a u se res o l u ti o n o f t h e co n f li c t “ o ften turn s o n an ev a l u a ti o n o f cred i b i l i ty

and dem eanor , and t hose j urors w ere i n at t endan ce w hen t he te st i m ony w as del i vered. ” John so n , 2 3 S .W
. 3 d a t 8
. T h u s , u n le s s w e c o n c lu d e t h a titis nec es sa r

y t o c o rre c tm ani fes ti nj us t i ce , w e m us tgi ve due de ferenc e t o t he fac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ par t i cul ar l y t hos e det er m i nat i ons con ce r ni ng t he
w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y of t he evi dence. ” Id . a t 9 . O u r d e fe re n c e i n th i s re g a rd s a fe g u a rd s th e d e fe n d a n t’s ri g h t to a tri a l b y j u ry . La nco n, 253 S. W
. 3d a t704. A n opi ni on addr essi ng fact ual suf f i ci ency m ust i ncl ude a di scussi on of t he m ost i m por ta n t a n d rel eva ntev i den ce t hats uppor t s t he app el l ant ’ s com pl ai nton a p p e a l
. S i m s v . S tate , 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).

i v. Fact ual l y S uff i ci entEvi dence Eve n t hough Lu go rai se s a f ac t ual s uf

f i ci enc y of

t he evi den ce co m pl ai nt i n hi s t hi rd i ss ue, w e agree w i t h t he St at e t hatLu go’ s fac t ual s uf f i ci enc y i ss ue i s “s i m pl y an at t ack on t he credi bi l i t y of a w i t ness. “ S peci f i cal l y, Lugo at t acks th e cre d i b i l i ty o f S a n c h e z, th e S tate ’s k e y w i tn e ss a n d th e o n l y e y e w i tn e ss to D el gad i l l o’ s m urder t o t es t i f y att r i al , by poi nt i ng ou tt hats he adm i t t ed t hats he had not bee n com pl et el y t r ut hf ul t o pol i ce dur i ng t hei r i ni t i al i nve st i gat i on a nd t h a th e r t e s t im o n y re g a rd in g w h e re D e lg a d illo ’s b o d y f e l l t o w a rd t h e f lo o r in rel at i ons hi p t o L ugo w as i nco n s i st entw i t h t he m edi ca l ex am i ner ’ s t es t i m ony con ce r ni ng t he proxi m i t y of t he w ea pon t hatki l l ed D el gad i l l o w hen i t w as f i red. L u g o c o n t e n d s t h a t w h e n “ h e r t e s t im o n y is re v ie w e d a s a w h o le , s h e is t o t a lly u n b e l i e v a b l e .”E v e n i f S a n c h e z ’s te s ti m o n y w a s i n c o n s i s te n t, i t w a s w i th i n th e j u ry ’s

pur vi ew t o det er m i ne t he credi bi l i t y of her t est i m ony, and t he j ury w as al so f ree t o b e lie v e h e r t r ia l t e s t im o n y o v e r h e r s t a t e m e n t m a d e t o t h e p o lic e d u r in g t h e ir i n v e s ti g a ti o n . S e e C h a m b e rs v . S tate , 805 S. W
. 2d 459 , 461 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ); S h a rp v . S tate , 7 0 7 S
. W
. 2 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ), c e rt . deni ed , 4 8 8 U .S . 8 7 2 (1 9 8 8 ); se e also F u e n tes v . S tate , 991 S. W
. 2d 267, 271 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cer t . deni ed , 52 8 U
. S
. 1 0 2 6 (1 99 9) ( noti ng t hat in c o n s i s t e n c y g o e s t o t h e c re d ib ilit y o f t h e w it n e s s e s a n d t h e ju r y is t h e s o le j udg e of

t hati ssue)
. Fur t her , t he j ury w a s f ree t o di sregar d any or al l of her t es t i m ony, i ncl udi ng w het her t o bel i eve her ac cou ntof w here Del gad i l l o’ s body fe l l a fte r h e w a s s h o t. S ee W a l k e r v. S tate , 180 S
. W
. 3d 829, 831– 32 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2005 , pe t . ref ’ d) ( hol di ng e vi de n c e l ega l l y a nd fa c tu a l l y s u fficie n t to c o n v i c t fo r ro b b e ry e v e n th o u g h s o l e e y e w i tn e s s ’s tes ti m o n y tha t ro b b e ry l a ste d n e a rl y tw o m i n u tes w a s i n c o n sisten t w i th s e c u ri ty ta p e s i n d i c a ti n g th a t ro b b e ry l a s t e d l e s s th a n o n e m i n u te ); see al so B o w d e n v . S tate , 628 S. W
. 2d 782, 784 (Te x. Cr i m . App
. 1982 ) ( “Re con ci l i at i on of

co nf l i ct s and co nt radi c ti o n s i n t he evi den ce i s w i t hi n t he provi nce of

t he j ur y. ”)
. W e al so do n otf i nd a ny i nf i r m i t y t hatSanc hez w as t he o n l y e y e w i tn e s s to th e m u rd e r to te s ti fy
. S ee Bo w den , 628 S. W
. 2d a t784. W e h a v e revi ew ed t he evi den ce i n a ne ut ral l i ght , an d w e f i nd no o bje c t iv e b a s is in t h e re c o rd fo r h o ld in g t h a t t h e ju r y ’s v e rd ic t w a s c l e a r ly
w rong o r

m ani fes t l y unj us tor t hati tw as con t radi ct ed by t he grea t w ei ghtan dp re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . See L anc on , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W at so n , 204

S. W
. 3d at414– 15, 417. Rat her , t he evi den ce pres ent ed at t r i al w as s uf f i ci ent t o s uppor tt he verdi ct , an d no con t rar y evi den ce exi st s t hat w oul d rend er t he e v i d e n c e fa c tu a l l y i n s u fficie n t u n d e r th e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a rd o f re v i e w . S ee L a n con , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W at so n , 2 0 4 S
. W
. 3 d a t 4 1 4
– 1 5 , 417. A c c o rd i n g l y , w e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l y s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt L u g o ’s convi ct i on. W e over r ul e Lugo’ s t hi rd i ssue. V I. P UNISHM EN T R AN GE E NHANC EMENT In h is f ift h is s u e , L u g o a rg u e s t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u r t e r re d b y o v e r r u lin g h is obj ec t i on t o t he puni sh m ent cha rge bec aus e “t here i s no sh ow i ng t hat one of t h e h a b it u a l o f

fe n d e r c o n v ic t io n s is a fe lo n y .” S p e c if ic a lly , L u g o a rg u e s t h a tit i s notcl ea r

“ f rom t he j udgm ent ” w het her hi s previ ous co n v i c ti o n for dr i vi ng w h i l e i n to x i c a te d (“D W I”) w a s a fe l o n y o r a m i s d e m e a n o r. T h e S ta te c o u n te rs t hatLu go w ai ved t hi s obj ec t i on be ca us e h e d i d n o t obj ec tt o t he i ndi ct m ent
— provi di ng Lugo w i t h noti ce t hatt he S t at e w as seeki ng t o enhan ce t h e ra n g e o f p u n is h m e n t
— p r io r t o t r ia l. T h e S t a t e f u r t h e r a rg u e s t h a t , e v e n if Lugo ’ s i ssue i s preser ved, t he “j udg m entpl ai nl y ref l ect s t ha t [L u g o] w as c o n v i c te d o f th e fe l o n y o ffe n s e o f fe l o n y d ri v i n g w h i l e i n to x i c a te d .” T h i s c o u rt re j e c ts th e S ta te ’s a rg u m e n t th a t L u g o h a s w a i v e d th i s p o te n ti a l p o i n t o f e rro r, butw e a gree w i t h t he St at e t hats uf f i ci entev i den ce ex i st s t hat t he con vi ct i on i n t he enh anc em entpa ragraph Lu go c om pl ai ns of w as a fel ony for pur pos es of e n h a n c i n g th e s e n te n c e ra n g e fo r h i s c o n v i c ti o n o f m u rd e r.T h e S tate ’s i n c lu s io n o f t h e en h a n c e m e n t pa rag rap h s s e rve d to

su bs t ant i al l y i ncrea se Lu go’ s rang e o f p u n i s hm ent . A perso n w i t h no fel ony enhan cem e n ts w ho i s convi ct ed of m ur der
— a f i rstdegr ee fel ony— faces a pr i son sent ence “for l i fe or for any t er m of not m or e t han 99 years or l ess t han 5 years
. ” S ee Tex. Pena l C ode A nn. §§ 12. 32( a) , 19. 02 (V er non 2003)
. But th e m i n i m u m p ri s o n te rm a d e fe n d a n t m a y re c e i v e i n c re a s e s t o f i fte e n y e a rs w h e n o n e fe l o n y e n h a n c e m e n t i s fo u n d to b e tru e . S e e id
. § 12
. 42(c ) ( 1) ( V er non Supp
. 2008 )
. And w h e n tw o fel ony enh anc em ent s are f ound t o be t r ue, as i s t he case here, a defendan tfoun d gui l t y of m ur der m ay be assess ed n o fe w e r th a n tw e n ty -fi v e y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t. Id . § 1 2 .4 2 (d ). F irs t , a d d re s s in g t h e S t a t e ’ s a rg u m e n tt h a tL u g o fa ile d t o p re s e r v e t h is er ror for revi ew : Thi s cou r tac kno w l edg es t hatt he ca se s ci t ed by t he St at e d o s t a n d fo r

t h e p ro p o s it io n t h a tfa ilu re b y a d e fe n d a n tt o o bje c tt o a p o t e n t ia lly defect i ve enhan cem entparagr aph i ncl uded i n an i ndi ct m entprio r t o t r i al p ro h i b i ts th e d e fe n d a n t fro m ra i s i n g a n y a l l e g e d e rro r o n a p p e a l
. See Goi ns v. S tate , 8 4 1 S .W .2 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 2
– 3 3 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st] 1 9 9 2 , p e t. ref’ d) (ove r r ul i ng cha l l eng e t o enh anc em ent paragraph con t ai ned i n i ndi ct m ent fo r fa i l u re to o bj e c t p r i o r to tri a l ); se e also S h a w v . S tate , 794 S. W
. 2d 544, 5 4 4
– 4 5 (

T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 1 9 9 0 , n o p e t. ) (ov e rr u l i n g ch a l l e n g e to enhan cem entparagraph i n i ndi ct m ent w here obj ect i on m ade aft er j ury ret ur ned a verdi ctof

gui l t y but pr i or

t o pun i shm ent )
. Th e hol di ngs i n t hi s l i ne of cases a re p re d i c a te d o n th e l a n g u a g e fo u n d i n T e x a s C o d e o f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u rear t i c l e 1
. 1 4 ( b ) , “ I f t h e d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t o bj e c t t o a d e fe c t , e r r or , or

i r regul ar i t y of

for m or subst ance i n an i ndi ct m ent . . . [ befor e t r i al ] , . . . he m ay notrai s e the o bj ec t i on on ap pea l
. ” Tex. Code Cr i m . Proc. A nn. ar t . 1. 14( b) ( V er non 2005)
. A r t i cl e 1. 14( b) i s des i gne d t o preve nt a def end ant f rom l yi ng “b ehi nd t he l og” and at t ac ki ng an ot her w i se co ns t i t ut i ona l l y va l i d i ndi ct m entfor t he f i rst t i m e on appeal
— i t does not rel i eve t he S t at e of i t s burden t o pr ove t hat a d e fe n d a n t i s a h a b i tu a l o ffe n d e r. C o m p a re T e a l v . S tate , 230 S. W
. 3d 172, 17 5– 78 (

Tex
. C r i m . A pp. 20 07 ) (di scussi ng l e g i s l a t i ve- refor m package desi gned t o preve ntco nvi ct i on reve rs a l s ba se d on t he “f i ne t ec hni ca l di st i nct i ons b e tw e e n d e fe c ts o f fo rm a n d th o s e o f s u b s ta n c e ” ) w i th J o rda n v . S tate , 256 S
. W .3 d 2 8 6 , 29 1– 92 ( Tex
. C r i m . A pp. 20 08 ) ( hol di ng t hatStat e’ s burden unde r ha bi t ual of

fend er st at ut e i s an i ss ue of su f f i ci enc y of evi den ce and ca nnot b e c a te g o ri z e d a s tri a l e rro r). I nde ed, t he cou r tof cr i m i nal ap pea l s has s a i d , “ A cl ai m rega rdi ng suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence need notbe preser ved for revi ew at t he t r i al l evel and i s not w ai ved by the f ai l ure t o do so. ” R a n k i n v . S tate , 46 S
. W
. 3d 899, 90 1 (T ex. C r i m . A pp. 20 01 )
. The cou r tof cr i m i nal appeal s has al so “consi st ent ly hel d t hatw her e t here i s no evi dence t o show t hatt he offenses w e re c o m m i tte d a n d b e c a m e fi n a l i n th e p r o p e r s e q u e n c e , th e d e fe n d a n t’s s e n te n c e m a y n o t b e e n h a n c e d u n d e r th e S ta te ’s h a b i tu a l o ffe n d e r s ta tu te s .” T o m l i n v . S tate , 722 S. W
. 2d 702 , 705 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1987 )
. O ur revi ew of L u g o ’s b ri e f i n d i c a tes th a t h e i s c h a l l e n g i n g th e su ffi c i e n c y o f th e e v i d e n c e tosu p p o r to n e o f t h e i n d i c t me n t ’ s e n h a n c e me n tp a ra g ra p h s , n o tt h e p ar agr aph i tse l f. T h u s, h e ca n rai se th i s i ss u e o n a p p e a l e v e n th o u g h h e d i d n o t obj e c t t o th e p a ra g ra p h u n ti l a fte r th e j u ry re tu rn e d a v e rd i c t o f g u i l ty . S e e T o m lin , 722 S
. W
. 2d at70 5. Ther efore, w e n o w a ddr ess t he S t at e’ s argum entt hat su f f i ci entev i den ce ex i st s t hatLu go’ s pr i or co nvi ct i on for

D W I w as a fel ony and
w as suf f i ci entt o sat i sf

y t he habi t ual of

fender st at ut e. Before t he S t ate m ay use enhancem entparagraphs t o i ncrease a def end ant ’ s rang e o f

p u n i s h m ent , i tm us tprove t hatt hey are t r ue bey ond a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. S e e W i l l i a m s v . S tate , 980 S
. W
. 2d 222, 226 (Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 19 98 , pet . ref ’ d)
. W hen t he S t at e seeks t o pun i sh a d efend antas a hab i t ual of fend er , and t hus i ncl ude s t w o fel ony enh anc em ent paragraph s i n t he i ndi ct m ent , t he St at e m us ts how t h a t t he def end ant c o m m i tte d e a c h s u c c e s s i v e fe l o n y a fte r th e p ri o r c o n v i c ti o n w a s fi n a l
. S ee Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12. 42( d)
. Here, t he enh anc em entpa ragraph s rea d: H a b i tu a l o ffe n d e r n o ti c e : A n d i t i s fu rth e r p re s e n te d to s a i d c o u rt t hatpr i or

t o t he com m i ss i on of t he of fens e o r

o ffe n s es s etout abo ve, [ Lug o] w as f i nal l y c onvi ct ed of t he fel ony of

fens e o f p o s s e s s io n w it h in t e n tt o d e liv e r a c o n t ro lle d s u b s t a n c e . . . in ca us e n um ber

0573 866 D , on t he 28t h day of A ugus t , 1995 , an d, t h a tp r io r

t o t h e c o m m is s io n [o f 0 5 7 3 8 6 6 D , L u g o ] w a s f in a lly con vi ct ed of

t he fel ony of

fens e o f

dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi ca t ed and fel ony r epet i t i on . . . i n cause num ber 04 84 03 1D , on t he 10 t h day of M a y, 1993
. Th us, for

t he S t at e to s h o w th atLugo w as subj ectt o pun i shm entas a t w o- t i m e hab i t ual of

fend er , i t w as requ i red t o sh ow bey ond a rea so nab l e d oubt t h a tb e fo re c o m m is s io n o f t h e p r im a r y o f fe n s e — m u rd e r

— L u g o h a d b e e n f in a llyc o n v i c ted o f fel oni es in cause num bers 05 73 86 6D and 0 48 40 31 D and t hat

th e y w e re c o m m i tte d i n th e p ro p e r s e q u e n c e . See i d. ; C a s e y v . S tate , 708 S .W .2 d 9 1 4 , 9 1 6 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 8 6 , p e t. re f’d ). Th ere are several w ays t hatt he S t at e m ay prove t hata convi ct i on i s f i nal a n d i s tru e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. F o r i n s ta n c e , g e n e ra l l y a d e fe n d a n t’s pl ea of t r ue t o a n enh anc em ent paragraph provi des su f f i ci entev i den ce t o f i nd th e p a ra g ra p h tru e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. S e e W i l so n v . S tate , 671 S
. W
. 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); se e also M a g i c v . S tate , 217 S. W
. 3d 66, 70 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1st D i st . ] 200 6, no pet . )
. A de fend ant w h o h a s p l e a d e d tru e to a n e n h a n c e m e n t p a ra g ra p h c a n s ti l l c o n te n d , h o w e v e r, th att he evi den ce i s i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor tproof of t he paragraph be yond a rea so nab l e d oubt , butonl y w hen “ th e rec ord a f f i r m at i vel y ref l ec t [ s] t hatt he pr i or convi ct i on shou l d not have been used for enhan cem entpur poses. ” M i kel
v . S tate , 167 S. W
. 3d 556, 559– 60 ( Te x. App
. — Hous t o n [1 4 t h Di s t . ] 2005 , no pe t . ) (quot i ng C ruz v . S tate , N o. 01
- 00
- 00 46 3- C R , 20 01 W L 11 68 27 3, at *1 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1st D i st . ] O ct . 4, 200 1, no pet . ) ( not des i gna t ed for p u b l i c a ti o n )); see al so Ex par t e Ri ch , 1 9 4 S
. W
. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 3
– 1 4 (T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). H e re , p r io r

t o p u n is h m e n tb e in g a s s e s s e d , L u g o o bje c t e d t o t h e u s e o f h is con vi ct i on for

fel ony D W I i n c aus e n um ber 0 4 840 31D for en han ce m ent pur pos es be ca us e t he pen pa ck etref l ec t ed he w as as se ss ed puni sh m entfal l i ng w i th i n th e ra n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t c o n s i s te n t w i th b o th a m i s d e m e a n o r o r afel ony. N onethel ess, Lugo pl eaded t r ue t o both enhancem entparagraphs.

Thus , Lu go m us tnow s how t hatt he rec ord af f i r m at i vel y ref l ec t s t hat hi s pr i or c o n v i c ti o n fo r D W I sh o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n u s e d fo r e n h a n c e m e n t p u rp o s e s . S ee Ex Part e Ri ch , 194 S. W
. 3d at 513 –14
. I n ot her w ords , he m us t sh ow t hatt he rec ord a f

f i r m at i ve l y e st abl i sh es t hathi s con vi ct i on for D W I w as nota fel ony. Id
. Th e pen packetfo r cause num ber 04 84 03 1D descr i bes t he conv i ct ed offense as “ D r i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed and fe lo n y repet i t i on. ” The pen p acket f ur t her de sc r i bes t hatLu go pl ea ded gui l t y t o D W I as par t of a pl ea ba rgai n, an d t hatt he puni sh m entas se ss ed w as for s i x m ont hs ’ i nca rce rat i on i n t he Tar rant C o u n ty J a i l a n d a $ 5 0 0 fi n e (a p u n i s h m e n t w i th i n t h e r a n g e fo r e i th e r a m i sdem eanor o r a fel ony u nder t he D W I l aw t hatexi st ed w hen Lug o pl eaded gui l t y. ) Actof

M ay 27, 1983 , 68t h Le g. , R. S. , ch
. 303, § 3, 1983 Tex. G en. L a w s 1 5 6 8 , 1 5 7 4
– 7 7 , repe al ed by A ct of M ay 19, 199 3, 73r d L eg. , R. S. , ch
. 900 , § 1. 15, 1993 Tex. G en. La w s 358 6, 370 4 (cod i f i ed as am end ed atTex. Penal C ode A nn. § 49
. 09 ( V er non S upp . 20 08 ) )
. Fur t her m or e, Lugo’ s defense cou ns el ex pl ai ned t o t he j ur y t hatLu go ha d be en con vi ct ed of “ fel ony D W I an d

. . . o n tw o p re v i o u s o c c a s i o n s [L u g o ] w a s c o n v i c te d o f m i s d e m e a n o r D W I.” C ons i der i ng t hatLu go pl ea ded t r ue t o t he enh a n c em entpa ragraph predi cat ed on cause nu m ber 04 8 40 31 D ; t hatt here w as evi dence i n t he pen pac ke tt hatt he con vi ct i on w as for “ fel ony repe t i t i on” ; t hatLu go a dm i t t ed he had been convi ct ed of fel ony D W I ; and t hat t he pun i shm ent asses sed for causen u m b e r

0 4 8 4 0 3 1 D w a s w it h in t h e ra n g e o f p u n is h m e n t fo r a fe lo n y , w e h o ld t hatLugo has fai l ed t o dem onst rat e t hat“t he recor d af f i r m at i vel y ref l ect [ s] t hat t he pr i or convi ct i on’ shoul d not have been used for enhancem entpur poses. ” S ee M i kel , 16 7 S
. W
. 3d at55 9– 60
. W e over r ul e Lugo’ s f i ft h i ssue. V II. C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d e a c h o f L u g o ’s fi v e i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. BI LL M EI ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and M EI ER, JJ. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r 1, 2009