Court Opinion

ID: 9385771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-09 08:11:45.757642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.596978
License: Public Domain

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 Court Cause No. 17,142

                                   OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a
controlled substance. The court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement, probated
for six years.    Ultimately, the trial court revoked appellant’s community
supervision and assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement.

      In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting
three exhibits—certified copies of orders of deferred adjudication and judgments
of convictions—because the prior offenses were not sufficiently linked to him.
Appellant contends that, without the error, the court likely still would have revoked
his community supervision but would not have assessed punishment at the
maximum of ten years’ confinement.

      We hold that the trial court did not err by admitting the exhibits because
each prior conviction was sufficiently linked to appellant by his name and unique
Texas state identification number. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I.    Background

      The judgment of conviction in this case bears appellant’s name, Randy R.
Johnson, and “State ID No.: TX TX 06961497.” His community supervision
officer testified that the number appearing on this judgment, “Texas 06961497,” is
appellant’s unique Texas state identification number associated with his criminal
record.

      A police officer testified that he arrested appellant on August 19, 2018, for
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver after the officer found
thirty-three grams of oxycodone in appellant’s vehicle. The State offered into
evidence Exhibit No. 2, a certified order of deferred adjudication dated October 31,
2019, and signed by Judge Brian Warren. The order identifies the defendant as
Randy Ray Johnson with state identification number TX 06961497 for the offense
of “possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver 4 – 200 grams,” and
an offense date of August 19, 2018. Appellant’s counsel objected to the admission
of Exhibit No. 2 because the “ID number” was “not sufficient to admit the
contents.” Counsel informed the court 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 accept counsel’s representation as true. The
court admitted Exhibit No. 2.

                                         2
      The State then 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
state identification number TX 06961497 for a misdemeanor possession of
marijuana.   Exhibit No. 6 is a certified copy of a 2011 order of deferred
adjudication and 2013 judgment adjudicating guilt for Randy Ray Johnson with
state identification number TX 06961497 for a state jail felony possession of a
controlled substance. Appellant’s counsel did not lodge a specific objection 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 case. Appellant’s counsel attempted to make
an offer of proof with the fingerprint expert, but the court announced that it would
accept as the offer that the expert could not identify the fingerprints on each of the
exhibits. The court again ruled, “I will still overrule your objections and those
three exhibits 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 supervision for a drug offense in Harris County in 2019 in
front of Judge Warren.

II.   Legal Principles

      When regular community supervision is revoked, as here, the court may
proceed to dispose of the case as if there had been no community supervision,
which may include sentencing the defendant to the term of confinement originally
assessed or sentencing the defendant to a lesser term. 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 at which community supervision
is revoked. See Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). As
                                          3
with any punishment hearing, regardless of the defendant’s plea and whether the
punishment is assessed by the judge or jury, evidence of a defendant’s prior
criminal record is admissible if relevant to determine the defendant’s sentence. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 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 conviction exists, and (2) the defendant is linked to that
conviction.   Henry v. State, 509 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
Although a “certified copy of a final judgment and sentence may be a preferred
and convenient means” of proving a prior conviction, no specific document or
mode of proof is required to prove these elements. Id. Acceptable evidence may
include testimony or other “documentary proof which contains sufficient
information to establish that a prior conviction exists and the defendant’s identity
as the person convicted.” Id. Each piece 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 evidentiary pieces fit together. See id.
at 919–20.

      This test for proving a prior conviction is often used in the 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 proving prior
convictions as part of a defendant’s criminal record 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
community supervision is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Hacker v.
State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 864–65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

      When, as here, the defendant challenges the admissibility of evidence about
a prior conviction, rather than the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the

                                           4
conviction, the issue is one of conditional relevancy. See Perez v. State, 21 S.W.3d
628, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Rosales v. State, 867
S.W.2d 70, 72 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, no pet.).            See generally Tex. R.
Evid. 104(b). Documents such as properly authenticated copies of a convicting
court’s judgment and sentence may be admissible although their relevance depends
upon the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding that the defendant
on trial is the same person as the one previously convicted. Perez, 21 S.W.3d at
630. When, as here, it is clear from the record that no additional evidence would
be offered by the State to prove identity other than the objected-to documents, the
trial court must determine whether the evidence would support a rational finding
that the defendant was the same person shown to have been previously convicted.
See Rosales, 867 S.W.2d at 73.

       We review the trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse
of discretion. See Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A
trial court abuses its discretion if the ruling lies outside the zone of reasonable
disagreement. Id.

III.   Analysis

       Although it does not appear this court has addressed whether the Texas
identification number appearing on a judgment of conviction, along with the
defendant’s name, can sufficiently link a defendant to a prior conviction, several
courts have answered the question affirmatively. See Barnes v. State, 585 S.W.3d
643, 650 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019) (sufficient link based on name 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. State, No. 10-18-00367-CR, 2021 WL 2252818, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Waco May 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same);

                                         5
Gonzales v. State, No. 05-19-00719-CR, 2020 WL 1672554, at *3 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Apr. 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same);
Johnson v. State, No. 02-17-00382-CR, 2019 WL 4309171, at *10 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth Sept. 12, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(same).

       Several of these decisions are unpublished, but we cite them for illustrative
and comparative purposes rather than as precedent. See Roberson v. State, 420
S.W.3d 832, 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Their rationale is sound. We hold that
orders and judgments of convictions containing a Texas state identification
number, coupled with testimony that the number is “unique” to a defendant’s
criminal record, provides sufficient basis for the fact finder to link the defendant to
prior convictions for purposes of proving a defendant’s criminal history under
Article 37.07, § 3(a)(1). See Barnes, 585 S.W.3d at 650; cf. Ex parte 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 number,” which is a “‘unique identifier’ that
cannot be assigned to another person and is reliable in identifying an individual in
criminal investigations”).

       Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
three exhibits containing appellant’s name and unique state identification number
for purposes 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 described arresting
appellant on the date of the offense for the 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.

                                               6
IV.   Conclusion

      Appellant’s sole issue is overruled. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                      /s/       Ken Wise
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Poissant, and Wilson.
Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

                                            7