Opinion filed April 25, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-11-00126-CR

__________

BRAVLIO DELACRUZ GONZALES A/K/A 

BRAVITO GONZALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17520B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Appellant, Bravlio Delacruz Gonzales a/k/a Bravito Gonzales, of the 

felony offense of driving while intoxicated. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b)(2) (West 

Supp. 2012). Upon finding the enhancement allegation to be true, the jury assessed Appellant’s 

punishment at confinement for fifteen years and a fine of $5,000. We affirm.

Appellant presents two issues for review. In these issues, Appellant contends that the 

trial court erred in permitting two expert witnesses to testify at trial when the State had not 

designated either witness as an expert. One of these witnesses was Stephanie Rollins, a forensic 

specialist who compared Appellant’s known fingerprints to the fingerprints on the judgments
2

from two prior DWI convictions that were alleged in the indictment as elements of the offense of 

felony DWI and also to the fingerprints in a pen packet from the attempted burglary conviction

that was alleged as an enhancement in the indictment. The other expert was Herman Carrel, a 

forensic scientist employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Carrel worked in the 

Abilene crime lab and performed a blood alcohol analysis on blood drawn from Appellant after 

his arrest for DWI in this case.

The record shows that the trial court had granted Appellant’s pretrial motion requesting 

the designation of all expert witnesses, along with their qualifications and a description of their 

contemplated testimony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 39.14(b) (West Supp. 2012). 

Although the State provided Appellant with a list of witnesses that included both Rollins and 

Carrel, the State did not designate Rollins and Carrel as experts. Over Appellant’s objection at 

trial that the State had not complied with the court’s order requiring the designation of expert 

witnesses, the trial court permitted the expert testimony of both Rollins and Carrel. The trial 

court specifically stated that Appellant was not surprised or harmed by the State’s failure to 

designate Rollins as an expert.

We review the trial court’s decision to permit Rollins and Carrel to testify as experts 

under an abuse of discretion standard. See Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 649–50 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2000). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we consider whether the 

State’s actions constituted bad faith and whether Appellant could have reasonably anticipated the 

witnesses’ testimony. See id.; Martinez v. State, 867 S.W.2d 30, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

Appellant does not contend that the State acted in bad faith in failing to designate its experts, and 

nothing in the record indicates any bad faith on the part of the State. The prosecutor who tried 

this case inherited it from another prosecutor and was not aware of the trial court’s order to 

designate expert witnesses. Furthermore, the record shows that the State had provided Appellant

with a list of witnesses that contained Rollins’s and Carrel’s names along with other discovery,

including Carrel’s alcohol analysis lab report. The State had also permitted defense counsel full 

access to the State’s file prior to trial. Carrel’s testimony as an expert should have been 

anticipated by Appellant based upon the contents of the lab report, which indicates that Carrell is 

a “Forensic Scientist II” and that his analysis showed that Appellant’s blood sample contained 

0.12 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Furthermore, Appellant could have 

reasonably anticipated that the State would call a fingerprint expert to meet its burden to prove 
3

Appellant’s identity as the person who had committed the prior offenses alleged in the 

indictment. See Irvine v. State, 857 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. 

ref’d). Accordingly, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Rollins 

and Carrel to testify. We overrule both of Appellant’s issues on appeal. 

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

April 25, 2013

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.