Affirmed and Opinion filed April 6 , 2023
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00283

- CR

RANDY R. JOHNSON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 17, 14 2

OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain, a ppellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance

. The court sentenced him to ten years ’ confinement, probated for six years. Ultimately, the trial court rev oke d appellant ’ s commun ity supervision a nd assessed p unis hment at ten years ’ confinement. In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting three exhibits

— certified copies of order s of deferred adjudication and judgments of convictions

—

becau s e the pr i or offenses were no t sufficiently linked to him

.2

Appellant contends that , without the error, the court likely still would have revoked his community su pervision but would not have assessed punishment at the maxi m um of ten year s ’ confin ement.
We hold that the trial c o urt d id not er r by admitting the exhibits because each prior conviction was sufficiently linked to appellan t by his name and unique Texas state identification number. W e affirm the trial court ’ s judgm en t.
I. Background The jud gment of conviction in thi s case bear s appellant ’ s name, Randy R. Johnson , and “ State I D No. : TX TX 0696 1497. ” His community supervision officer testified that the n umber appearing on this judgment , “ Texas 06961497, ” is appellant ’ s un ique Texas state identification numb er as sociated with his c riminal record

. A police officer test ified that he arrested appellant on August 19, 2018 , for possession of a c ontrolled substance with intent to deliver after the officer found thirty

- three gra ms of oxycodone in appellant ’ s vehic le

. T h e State offered i nt o evid ence Exhibit No. 2, a certified order of deferred adjudication dated October 31, 2019 , and signed by Judge Brian Warr en . The order identifies the defendant as Randy Ray J ohnson with s tate i den tification number TX 06961497 for the offense of “ posse ss ion of a controlled substance with inten t to deliver 4

– 200 grams , ” and an offense date of August 19, 2018. Appellant ’ s counsel objected to the admission of Exhibit No. 2 beca use the “ ID numbe r ” was “ not sufficient to admit the
content s. ” Counsel info rm ed the cou rt that the State ’ s fingerprint expert was unable to determine that the fingerprint on Exhibit No. 2 matched appellant ’ s fingerprint. The court said it would acce pt c ounsel ’ s represen tation as tru e
. The court admitted Exhibit No. 2.3

The State t hen moved to admit Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6. Exhibit No. 5 is a certified copy of a judgment of a 2013 conviction for Randy Ray Johnson with

s tate i dentificat ion number TX 0 6 961 497 f or a misdemeano r possession of

m arij uana
. Exhibit No. 6 i s a certified cop y of a 2011 order of deferred adjudication and 2013 judgment adjudicating guilt for Randy Ray Johnson with

s tate i dentification number TX 06961497 for a state jail felony possession of a

c ontrolle d sub stance

. Appellant ’ s counsel did not l odge a specific o bj ection to these exhibits, but counsel referred to the fingerprints not matching. The court ruled, “ I ’ m going to overrule that objection , ” and admitted the exhibits.
Soon after, the State rested its cas e. Appellant ’ s counsel attempted t o make an offer o f proof with the fingerprint exp ert , but the court announced that it would accept as the off

er that the expert could not identify the fingerprints on each o f th e exhibits. The court again ruled , “ I w ill still overrule your objections and those three ex hib it s are admitted. ” Appellant adduced testimony from his girlfriend

. She testified that she was present with appellant when he pleaded guilty and was placed on deferred adjudication community supe rvision for a drug offense in Harris County i n 2019 in front o f Judge Warren

. II. Legal Pr inciples
When regular community s upervision is revoked, as here, the court may proceed to dispose of the case as if there had bee n no community supervision , which may in clude s entencing the defen dant to the term of confi nement or ig inal ly assessed or sen tencing the defendant to a lesser te rm
. See Lombardo v. State , 524 S.W.3d 808, 816 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) . Often, as here, the sentence is imposed during the same hearing a t which com munity supervision is r ev oked. See Tapia v. St ate , 462 S.W.3d 29, 3 1 n. 2 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2015)

. As4

with any punishment hearing, rega rdless of the defendant ’ s plea and whether the punish ment is assessed by the judge o r jury, evidence of a defe ndant ’ s pri or cri minal record is a dm issible if relevant to determine the defendant ’ s sentence. See Tex. Code Crim

. Proc. a rt. 37.07, § 3(a)(1). To prove that a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense, the State must prove that ( 1) a prior convicti on exists, and (2 ) the defendant i s linked to that

co nvict ion. Henry v. State , 509 S.W.3d 9 15, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

. Although a “ certified copy of a final judgment and sentence may be a preferred and convenient means ” of p roving a prior conviction, no specifi c docu ment or mode of p ro of is required to prov e these element s. Id. Acceptable evidence may include testimony or other “ documentary proof which contains sufficient information to establish that a prior conviction exi sts and the defendant ’ s id entity as the per son convict ed

. ” Id

. Each pie ce of evidence used to link a defendant to a prior conviction may be insufficient on its own to prove the required elements, but it is the fact finder ’ s duty to determine if the evide ntiary pieces fit together

. See id. at 919

– 20.
This test fo r proving a prior conviction i s often used in th e context of proving an enhancement to punishment when the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 918. However , the burden for p roving prior convictions as part of a defen da nt ’ s criminal r ec ord under Article 37.07, § 3(a)(1) , is not beyond a reasonable doubt. See Bluitt v. State , 137 S.W.3d 51, 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Generally, the burden of proof in a proceeding to revoke

co mmunity supervision is by a preponderanc e o f the evidence. Se e Hacker v. S tate , 389 S.W.3d 860, 86 4

– 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). When, as here, the defendant challenges the admissibili ty of evidence about a prio r conviction, rather th an the sufficiency of t he evid ence to prove the5

conviction, the is sue is one of con di tional relevancy. See Perez v. State , 21 S. W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. App.

— Houst on [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) ; Rosales v. Stat e , 867 S.W.2d 70, 7 2 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1993, no pet .)

. See generally Te x. R. E vid. 104(b)

. Documents such as prop erly authenticate d copies of a convicting
court ’ s judg ment and sentence may be admissible although t heir relevan ce depends upon th e int roduction of evidence sufficient to suppor t a finding that the defendant
on tr ial is the same person as the one previousl y convicted. Per ez , 21 S.W.3d at 630. When , as here, it is clear from the record that no additiona l evidence would be offered by the State to prove identity other than the obj ected

- to documents, the trial court must de termine whether the evidence would s upport a rational f inding that the defendant was the same person shown to have been previous ly convi cte d. See Rosales , 867 S.W.2d at 73.
We review the trial court ’ s ruling on t he admission of evidence for an abus e of di scretion. See Casey v. State , 215 S .W.3d 870, 879 (T ex . Crim. App. 2007). A trial court abuses its discretion if the ruling lies outsi de the zone of reasonable disa greement. Id

. III. Analysis Although it does not appear this court has addressed whethe r the T exas ident ification number appearing on a ju dgment of c onviction , along with the defendant ’ s n ame , can suffic iently link a defendant to a prior conviction , s everal courts have answered the question affirmatively. See Barnes v. State , 585 S.W.3d 643 , 650 ( Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2019 ) (sufficien t link based on n am e and state identification number) , rev ’ d on other grounds , No. PD

- 1072

- 19, 2021 WL 476483 ( Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2021) (not designated for publication) ; see also Westbrook v. S t ate , No. 10

- 1 8

- 00367

- CR , 2021 WL 2252818, at *1 (Tex. Ap p.

— Waco May 26, 2 02 1, no pet.) (mem. op., not d esignated for publication) ( same );6

Gonzales v. S t ate , No. 05

- 19

- 00719

- CR, 2020 WL 1672554, at * 3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Apr. 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not d esignated fo r publi cati on) (same); Johnson v. S t

ate , No . 02

- 17

- 00382

- CR, 2 019 WL 4309171, at *10 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 12, 2019, pet. re f ’ d) (mem. op ., not desi gnated for publication) (same).
S everal of these decisions are unpublished, but we c ite them for illus trative and comparative purposes rather tha n as precedent. Se e Roberson v. State , 420 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Te x. Crim. App. 2013)

. Their rationale is sound. We hold tha t orders and judgments of conviction s containing a Texas state identification number, coup led wit h testimony that t he number is “ uniq ue ” to a defendan t ’ s criminal record, provides sufficient basis for the fact finder to link the defendant to prior conviction s for purposes of proving a defendant ’ s criminal history under Article 37.07, § 3(a)(1)

. See Bar nes , 585 S.W.3d at 650 ; c f. Ex par te Warren , 353 S. W. 3d 490, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasoning, “ [m]ost importantly, ” that convictions described in documents could be linked to the defendant because the documents contained the same “ FBI n umber , ” which is a “ ‘ unique identifier ’ that

can n ot be assigned t o another person and is reliable in identifying an individual in criminal investigations ” ). Accordingly, t he tria l court did not abuse its discretion by admitting th e three exhibits contain ing app ellant ’ s name and unique state identificati on number for pur po ses of proving his criminal record

. 1

1 Moreover, we note that the drug offense depicted in Exhibit No. 2 was further linked to appellant through the testimony of several witnesses

— a police officer de scribed a rresting appellant on the date of the offense for t he same offense , and appellant ’ s girlfriend witnessed him being placed on deferred adjudication for a drug offense in front of the judge named in the judgment in the same year as the judgment.7

IV. Conclusion Appellant ’ s sole issue is overru led. The trial court ’ s judgment is affirmed.

/s/ K en Wise J usti ce

Pane l con sists of J usti ce s W ise, Poiss ant , and Wilson

. Pu b lish

— Tex

. R. App. P. 47 .2( b)