Court Opinion

ID: 9668733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:24:08.64153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:47.770002
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
The issue is whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt its allegations in an enhancement paragraph by admissible evidence, in the form of a pen packet containing a purported copy of judgment and sentence which does not bear a certification by the clerk of the convicting court that they are correct copies of the judgment and sentence entered in the minutes of the trial court. See Attestation and Certificate and Judgment and Sentence in Appendix attached hereto. Convinced that the majority opinion grievously misconstrues and incorrectly applies pertinent rules of evidence I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Reed v. State, 785 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1990).
Those rules are, e.g., Tex.R.Cr.Evid. Rules 901(a) and (b)(7), 902(4) and 1005. “The authentication doctrines embodied in these provisions are not new; they existed at common law and under previous statutes in Texas.” Goode, Wellborn & Sharlot, Guide to Texas Rules of Evidence, § 901.9, 33 Texas Practice 627; accord: Ray, Law of Evidence § 1591, 2 Texas Practice (1990 Pocket Part 87-88); Note of Advisory Committee to Federal Rule 901(b) (treatment of authentication and identification draws largely from experience embodied in common law and related statutes).
The majority finds the instant “pen packet” was “sufficiently authenicated in accordance with Rules 901 and 902(4) ... and properly admitted into evidence at the punishment phase[.]” Slip Opinion, at 9. With deference, I respectfully dissent.
Rule 901 deals with “a special aspect of relevancy” — when relevancy of proffered evidence “depends upon its identity, source or connection with a particular person ... or event.” Goode, Wellborn & Sharlot, supra § 901.1, at 620; Note of Advisory Committee to Federal Rule 901(a). Compliance with the rule does not assure admission of the matter, for other rules may bar receiving it. Ibid. Tartt & Wolff, Article IX: Authentication and Identification, 20 Hous.L.Rev. 551, 555 (1983 Tex.R.Evid.Handbook).
Rule 901(a) merely provides a means for satisfying “a condition precedent to admissibility,” and with Rule 901(b)(7) contemplates authentication or identification by extrinsic evidence, as opposed to self-authentication of a writing that is a matter of public record. See Rule 902 (extrinsic evidence not required for certified copy of public record under Rule 902(4)).
The first illustration of such extrinsic evidence is testimony from a witness with knowledge that the matter is what it is claimed to be. Rule 901(b)(1); 36 Tex. Jur.3d 123, § 366; 189, § 400; 190, § 401. Under Rule 901(b)(7) such evidence would be live testimony that the writing is authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or is a purported public record, and is from the public office where items of this nature are kept — in the sense that they are enrolled by and maintained in that public office. Morris v. Wiley, 378 S.W.2d 149, at 152 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1964) writ refused n.r.e.; Tartt & Wolff, supra, 551, 566-567; Goode, Wellborn & Sharlot, supra § 901.9, at 627 (testimony of custodian); 36 Tex.Jur.3d 190, § 401; 228, § 417; 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2158, 771 (Chad-burn rev. 1978) (testimony by official custodian or private person, bringing record to court and identifying it), cited approvingly in Notes of Advisory Committee to Federal Rule 901(b)(7) (proof of custody); Black’s Law Dictionary (Rev. Fourth Ed.1968) 1438.
In a criminal prosecution there is but one “judgment.”1
*589The sole official custodian of district court judgments entered of record is the clerk of court. V.T.C.A. Government Code, § 51.303(a) and (b).
To prove the content of any public record, including a judgment, the original is required except as otherwise provided in the rules of evidence or by law. Tex.R.Cr. Evid, Rules 1002 and 1005, the latter providing for a certified or “compared” copy.
Thus, extrinsic evidence under Rule 901(b)(7) showing a judgment rendered in district court is made from the minutebook in which it was entered through testimony of the clerk of court, the custodian in the public office where it is kept. “The production of the judgment by the clerk is sufficient prima facie proof of its authenticity.” Short v. Blair & Hughes Co., 230 S.W. 427, at 431 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1921), no writ history; Ray, Law of Evidence, § 1278, 1A Texas Practice 470 (minute book admissible to establish judgment of court); 7 Wigmore, Evidence, supra.2
In the instant cause the record conclusively demonstrates that the State did not call the district clerk as a witness to authenticate or identify from the minute book a prior judgment of conviction in the cause alleged in the enhancement paragraph, namely Cause No. C74-5767-PH. Indeed, the State presented no extrinsic evidence whatsoever of the alleged former conviction for burglary; it relied solely on the paper included in the pen packet, State’s exhibit 3, appended hereto, as being a certified copy.
Thus, the authentication or identification required as a condition precedent to admissibility of a proper judgment of conviction to support allegations in the enhancement paragraph was not satisfied in accordance with Rule 901(b)(7). The majority admits as much by retreating to generality of Rule 901(a), and then turns into “extrinsic evidence,” for which there is no record support, “the fact that the records are true and correct copies of those upon which TDCJID relies in admitting and detaining prisoners[.]” Opinion, at 587. That alleged “fact,” however, cannot be “extrinsic evidence” that such records are in fact true and correct copies of originals on file back in the office of the clerk of the convicting court.3 There is no “extrinsic evidence” they are.
Rule 902(4), like Rule 901(a), merely provides an alternative, means for satisfying “a condition precedent to admissibility,” and coupled with Rule 1005 contemplates that a copy of an original official record or of an original document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually record*590ed or filed in a public office must be certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized by law to make the certification.
The public office in which the original record of a judgment is kept is the office of the clerk of court, the custodian of such records. See ante at 588, n. 1.
Turning to State’s exhibit 3, appended hereto, it is at once manifest from the face of the Attestation and Certification that the purported judgment and sentence therein are not certified copies of an original official record of a judgment or of an original judgment actually recorded or filed in the public office of the clerk of court. Compare Rule 1005 in tandem with Rule 902(4).
The attesting record clerk certifies that he has custody of “original files and records of persons heretofore committed to [TDC] ... including judgment and sentence of [appellant];” that he has “compared the attached copies with their respective originals now on file in my office and each thereof contains, and is a full, true and correct transcript and copy from its said original.”4
Whatever else so-called “original” files and records of persons committed to TDC may contain, neither the purported judgment nor sentence in State’s exhibit 3 is an “original” in the sense contemplated by Rule 1005.5 If there be one, the original official record of judgment and sentence remains in the public office of the district clerk of Dallas County. Indeed, the majority recognizes and acknowledges as much by saying that Article 42.09, § 8(a)(1), Y.A.C.C.P., requires a county to deliver to TDC “a copy of the judgment entered,” while at the same time suggesting that the copy may have been actually certified by the clerk of the convicting court, but the certification was inadvertently omitted in making up the pen packet. Opinion, at 584, n. 8; at 585, n. 10.6
Yet, the fact of the matter is the “original” copy is not certified by the clerk of the convicting court.7 At best it may be what *591Rule 1001(4) describes as a “duplicate.” However, Rule 1005 supplants Rules 1001-1004 with respect to public records. Goode, Wellborn & Sharlot, supra, § 1005.1, at 667.
“[Rule 1005 prefers] not a duplicate, but a special type of secondary evidence, a certified or a compared copy. Note that a certified copy may or may not be a duplicate as defined in Rule 1001(4); that is immaterial. If it is a certified or compared copy, it is admissible under Rule 1005, whether or not it is a duplicate; if it is not certified or compared, it is not admissible even if it is a duplicate.”
Therefore, even if the record clerk received what he believed to be a duplicate “copy” of judgment and sentence, since it was not certified by the clerk of the convicting court and the record clerk does not claim he compared the duplicate in his possession with the full, true and correct original record in the public office of the clerk of the convicting court, his attestation of a copy from “its said original” on file in his office is immaterial. It proves nothing about the original judgment and sentence entered in the minutes of the convicting court.
The decision of this Court in Dingler v. State, 768 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) is correct. The opinion of the court of appeals in this cause, Reed v. State, supra, is correct. For reasons stated herein the opinion of the majority in this cause is incorrect.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, and because the majority does not and the potential for unreliable records it thus fosters is far too risky, I dissent.8
*592APPENDIX
[[Image here]]
*593[[Image here]]

. On October 11, 1974, it was "the declaration of the court entered of record,” former article 42.-01, § 1, V.A.C.C.P.; on June 3, 1988, it was "the written declaration of the court signed by the trial judge and entered of record," Article 42.01, § 1, id. In both instances it is "entered of record” when the judgment actually rendered is "entered in the minutes of the court.” Jones v. State, 797 S.W.2d 33 (Clinton, J., dissenting to denial of motion for rehearing at 35); West-brook *589v. State, 753 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (Clinton, J., concurring at 160). Entering the judgment in the minutes affords "an enduring evidence of the judicial act ... thus furnishing external and incontestable evidence of the [decision rendered], and designed to stand as a perpetual memorial of [the court's] action.” Westbrook v. State, supra, quoting prior opinions of the Court.
Similarly, a "sentence” is also a judicial act, an order of the trial court entered of record; once a separate instrument, it is now a part of the judgment. Article 42.02, V.A.C.C.P.

. A statute permitting certified copies is merely cumulative, not restrictive. Manning v. State, 46 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 81 S.W. 957, at 960 (1904); Tex.Jur.3d § 400, 169. See Goode, Wellborn & Sharlot, supra § 901.9 (requisite showing by testimony of custodian inconvenient, so made by certified copy as prescribed in Rules 902(4) and 1005); Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 141 S.W.2d 972, at 975 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1940), writ refused (under former article 3720, V.A.C.S, [since repealed by Tex.Cr.R.Evid.] judgment of court can be proved only by recorded instrument or duly certified copy thereof). Former article 3731a, V.A.C.S., likewise provided for admission of a recorded judgment, id., § 1, or a certified copy attested to by the officer having legal custody thereof, i.e., the clerk of court, § 4.

. The majority says Rule 901 does not "expressly" provide that "the certifying custodian of a document may only be the custodian of the original record." Opinion, at 585. But Rule 901 makes no provision whatsoever about a "certifying custodian," so of course, illustrations in 901(b)(9) do not remotely suggest that a written "certification" conforms with requirements of Rule 901(a). Indeed, the illustrative examples contemplate "testimony” or “evidence," and as already demonstrated with respect to a judgment of conviction under Rule 901(7) that means the official record produced by and live testimony from the clerk of the convicting court. Proper "certification” is a device under Rule 902; it substitutes for "extrinsic evidence" prescribed by Rule 901.

. Given the declared policy of this state to manage TDC "in a manner consistent with the operation of a modern prison system,” that the office of the records clerk of TDC is a "public office" within the meaning of pertinent rules of evidence is a doubtful proposition. See, e.g., V.T.C.A. Government Code, § 500.010 (restricting access by visitors including the Governor).
Also, as a matter of law, “[a]ll information obtained in connection with inmates of the institutional division ... shall be confidential and privileged information and shall not be subject to public inspection^]” Article 42.18, § 18, V.A.C.S. See Texas Department of Corrections v. Dalehite, 622 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Moreover, such internal information is exempt from disclosure under the Open Records Act. Article 6252-17a, § 3(a)(1) and perhaps § 3(a)(8).

. Rule 1005 reads:
“The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed ..., if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.”

. Its reliance on that statutory provision is misplaced in this cause, however, for it was not in effect on October 24, 1974, when according to a truly certified copy of an original fingerprint card appellant was admitted to TDC. See Acts 1985, 69th Leg., Ch. 344, p. 1411, §§ 3 & 4, effective January 1, 1986.
To surmise that a certification by the clerk of convicting court "typically appears on the back of a [judgment]” and then justify its absence on a pen packet "copy” is utterly to disregard the sworn attestation by the record clerk that he “compared the attached copies with their respective originals now of file ... and each thereof ... is a full, true and correct transcript and copy from its said original." We should not so lightly presume that which is contrary to an attestation to uphold a finding of "true” by a trier of fact that deprives a citizen of his liberty.
Ironically, the proof positive in this cause from Dallas County was and still is readily available not too far away in the public office of the district clerk of Dallas County. The public record will reveal whether there is such a conviction as alleged in the enhancement paragraph.

.Further, there is nothing on its face to indicate that the original was ever entered in the minutes or recorded in the public record in or came from the public office of the court clerk. The paper does not bear a signature of the trial judge; it does not show a file mark by the clerk; it has no notation of recordation in the minute book. The purported copy is simply a printed form with blanks apparently filled in by a someone using a typewriter.

. To hold that State’s exhibit 3 is "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims,” i.e., a judgment of conviction in cause number C74-5767-PH in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, is to provide opportunities for hands of persons inclined to mischief and to create precedent for future followings that are virtually limitless. It is common knowledge that purported copies of judgments in criminal cases find their way into files and records of other state agencies, e.g., Department of Criminal Justice, pardons and paroles division; probation offices; sheriffs’ offices, and sundry law enforcement agencies. Indeed, the Department of Criminal Justice is charged with establishing a Criminal History Record System. See Chapter 60, V.A.C.C.P.
Under today's decision a “records clerk” in any and every such office may certify an otherwise unauthenticated "copy" of an “original" judgment of conviction “on file in my office," and it will be admissible evidence to support allegations in an enhancement paragraph. Thus the presumption of regularity relied on by the majority, opinion, at 587, becomes a weak, slender reed of hope.