AFFiRM; Opinion issued November 13, 2012

In The 

## (!Iuurt uf prt1 Fiffl )istrict uf exa at Oa1ta No. 05-11-00933-CR
WILLIAM EDWARD WRIGhT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09-59758-K 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Murphy Opinion By Justice Morris Following his jury conviction for aggravated sexual assaLilt. William Edward Wright complains that the trial court erred in using two previous convictions to enhance his punishment because the State failed to prove the previous convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm. The background ofthe case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation ofthe facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant argues in a single point oferror that the trial court erred in using two previous convictionsto enhancehis punishmentto an automatic life sentencebecausethe State failedtoprove he committedthoseprevious convictions beyond areasonable doubt. To show adefendanthas beenconvicted of a previous ollense. the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the previous conviction exists and thatthe defendant is linked to that conviction. Flowers v. Slate, 220 S.W.3d 919. 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). No specific 

### document or method ofproofis required to prove these two elements. Id. Regardless ofthe type of evidentiary items the State offers to establish the existence ofaprevious conviction and its link to a specific defendant, the trier offact looks atthe totality ofthe evidence admittedto determinethe two elements. lithe two elements can be found beyondareasonable doubt, thenthe combined evidence is necessarily legally sufficientto prove the previous conviction. See Id. at 923. Appellant complains the evidence in his case is insufficient to connect him to the previous offenses because, although a fingerprint expert was able to match appellant’s current fingerprints with fingerprints fi)und 

### in his pen packet from the state ofMissouri, the State failed to link the pen packetfingerprintstotheMissouri

### judgment showinghisprevious convictions forrape and sodomy. He complains there is a disparity among the documents about his correct birth date. And he complains thejudgment in the pen packet showing his previous rape and sodomy’ convictions does not match the certified copy ofthe judgment also offered into evidence by the State. Appellant is identified inthe Missouri penpacketrecords as offendernumber 160425. The 

### records show a man with his name was convicted ofrape and sodomy on May 15, 1987 and was imprisoned on May 20. 1987. His “face sheet” for the department ofcorrections lists his 

### name, offendernumber, and social securitynumber, in additionto his two ten-yearconsecutive sentences and his “received” date ofMay 20. 1987. The “face sheet” also shows thathe convictedofrape 

### and sodomy on IVlay 15. 1987. 

### The social security number listedon the face sheetcorresponds with the social security number listed on other documentary evidence showing appellant’s time served in 

### Dallas County for the offense ofaggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The 1)allas Countydocuments also contain aphotograph ofappellant and a set of fingerprints thatthe fingerprint expert
was unable to analyze. The fingerprints included in the Missouri pen packet do not reference a specific offense, but appellant’s name, race, and offendernumberare included, in addition to ahandwrittendateof“5-20- 87” near the signature ofthe person who took the prints. Moreover, the pen packet contains a photograph ofappellant showing that he was received on 5-20-87” for the crimes ofrape and sodomy and received a sentence of“20-10, 10” years, which corresponds to the sentence in the writtenjudgment contained in the pen packet. That judgment lists appellant’s punishment for his convictions for ‘COUNT I

- RAPE: COUNT TI

- SODOMY” as ‘l0 years under Count I and 10 years under Count II said counts to run consecutively with each other.” Thejudgment is also stamped with appellant’s offendernumber. Viewing all these documentstogether. we conclude the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was correctly linked to the rape and sodomy offenses. It is true that appellant’s birth year varies from 1947 to 1955 to 1945 among the various documents showing his previous convictions. The birth date, however, ofAugust 2 is consistent among all the documents. In addition, there are minor differences between the certifiedjudgment showing appellant’s rape and sodomy convictions and thejudgment contained in the pen packet. Although the State did not offer any evidence to explain the discrepancies, the differences are not material to proving the fact ofthe previous convictions. Viewing the evidence as a whole. we conclude it is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the previous rape and sodomy offenses. The trial court did not err in using the convictions to enhance appellant’s sentence. We overrule appellant’s solepoint oferror and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

JOSE FIB ORRIS EjusfICE I)o Not Publish Ttx. R. App. P.47 1 10933F.LJO5

-4--tnirt 

## ufApptaI ifti! Ottrirt uf 

## xa at aIta JUDGMENT WILLIAM EDWARD WRIGHT. Appellant Appeal from 

### the Criminal District Court No. 4 ofDallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F09- No. 05-11-00933-CR V. 59758-K). Opinion delivered by Justice Morris, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Murphy participating. Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the

### judgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 13. 2012.