Alridge v. State
Decision Date | 02 June 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 05-86-00559-CR,05-86-00559-CR |
Citation | 732 S.W.2d 395 |
Parties | Marvin Dean ALRIDGE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ronald D. Hinds, Dallas, for appellant.
Donald G. Davis, Dallas, for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, HECHT and McCRAW, JJ.
Marvin Dean Alridge, Jr. was convicted of burglary of a habitation. Punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was assessed at fifty years' penitentiary confinement. In his first point of error, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the first enhancement paragraph. We agree, and find the enhancement evidence insufficient to support either paragraph.
At trial, appellant objected to evidence of the prior conviction as follows:
We can find no reference in the record to a plea entered on March 4, 1984. Instead, we find references that state the offense was committed on March 4, 1984. Even if appellant's contention were correct, this would be a prohibited collateral attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the prior conviction. Owens v. State, 540 S.W.2d 324, 325 (Tex.Crim.App.1976).
In examining the record with reference to appellant's above contentions, we noted serious deficiencies with the sufficiency of the enhancement proof. There are several acceptable methods to prove the prior criminal record of a defendant. These include: (1) testimony of a witness who personally knows the defendant and the fact of his prior conviction and identifies him; (2) stipulation or judicial admission of the defendant that he has been so convicted; (3) introduction of certified copies of the judgment and sentence and record of the Texas Department of Corrections or a county jail including fingerprints of the accused supported by expert testimony identifying them with known prints of the defendant; and (4) comparison by the fact finder of a record of conviction which contains photographs and a detailed physical description of the named person, with the appearance of the defendant, present in court. Lyle v. State, 669 S.W.2d 853, 855-56 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1984, no pet.). These methods are not the exclusive methods of proving prior convictions. Littles v. State, 726 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987); Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The State must, however, meet its burden of proving that the person named in the prior convictions is the same person as the defendant in the instant case. Elizalde v. State, 507 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); see also Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex.Crim.App.1982).
This indictment contains two enhancement paragraphs. The first paragraph alleges that appellant had been convicted in cause number F84-72782-TU of the felony offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The second paragraph alleges a lawful conviction for aggravated assault in cause number F81-12293-MU. Appellant pleaded not true to both paragraphs.
The State did not offer a "pen packet," but to prove the allegations of the two enhancement paragraphs, it offered into evidence Exhibit 4, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. Exhibit 4 consisted of an affidavit and information charging one Marvin Dene [sic] Aldridge [sic], Jr. with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and a judgment declaring him guilty as charged and sentencing him to three years' penitentiary confinement. The cause number of the judgment is F84-72782. These documents are certified by the clerk of the Dallas County District Courts. Exhibit 6 consisted of an indictment charging one Marvin Dean Alridge with aggravated assault and a judgment declaring him guilty as charged in the indictment and sentencing him to five years' penitentiary confinement. The cause number on the judgment is F81-12293. These documents are also certified by the District Clerk. There are no fingerprints on either judgment.
Exhibit 7 was a fingerprint card, dated the day of trial, and initialed by Max Chester, who testified that the fingerprints on the card were those of the defendant, taken fifteen minutes before Chester testified. Chester then compared these fingerprints to right index finger prints on "some official records of Dallas County Jail."
Exhibit 8(a), called a jail book-in sheet by Chester, lists appellant's name and under a column entitled "indictment" is written the number F84-72782. This number matches the number on the judgment in Exhibit 4 and in the first paragraph of the indictment. In the lower right hand corner of the document, there is a fingerprint under the heading "At Release." Exhibit 8(a) was offered and admitted for the limited purpose of inclusion in the record.
Exhibit 9(a), called a jail card, lists appellant's name and states he is "eligible for trusty." There is no offense listed, no indictment number, and states at the bottom that it is page 2 of 2. There is no page 1 in our records. In the lower right hand corner of this exhibit, there is also a fingerprint under the heading "At Release." When asked whether the cause number in the second paragraph of the indictment and in Exhibit 6, F-81-12292-MU, matched a cause number on the official jail records, Chester testified, "Okay, here is Cause Number F-81-12293-MU and here in my records it is F-81-12293-MU." It is unclear whether "my records" refers to Exhibits 8(a) or 9(a), but we are unable to find this number in either exhibit. There are no other records before us. Exhibit 9(a) was also offered and admitted only for record purposes.
Chester testified that the fingerprints he took of appellant matched the fingerprints on Exhibits 8(a) and 9(a). There is no evidence, however, that in fact or in practice the fingerprints on these exhibits were those of the person named in these records. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Handspur v. State, 05-89-00082-CR
...prior convictions. Beck, 719 S.W.2d at 209; Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Alridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395, 396 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd). Certainly the various methods normally enumerated cannot be said to be exclusive means of proving prior convict......
-
Perez v. State
...effectively ruled that no part of the exhibit would be considered as evidence until further ruling. See Alridge v. State,732 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) (holding that jury could not consider exhibits admitted for record purposes when determining the truth of an enhan......
-
Sanders v. State
...812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (holding State had burden of proving that the two defendants were same person); Alridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) (fingerprint identification insufficient evidence to prove We have been directed to no cases requiring an ins......
-
Morse v. Com., 0043-87-3
...states have prohibited defendants from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of the underlying convictions. See Aldridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (defendant could not attack underlying conviction by pointing out that record of conviction showed date of information ......
-
Punishment Phase
...also be connected to the defendant where it contains a photograph of the defendant and a detailed physical description. Alridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d ). TIP TO BENCH: If, after all proof on the fact in question has been received, the evidence does not, i......
-
Punishment Phase
...also be connected to the defendant where it contains a photograph of the defendant and a detailed physical description. Alridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d ). TIP TO BENCH : If, after all proof on the fact in question has been received, the evidence does not,......
-
Punishment Phase
...also be connected to the defendant where it contains a photograph of the defendant and a detailed physical description. Alridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d ). TIP TO BENCH: If, after all proof on the fact in question has been received, the evidence does not, i......
-
Punishment Phase
...also be connected to the defendant where it contains a photograph of the defendant and a detailed physical description. Alridge v. State, 732 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d ). TIP TO BENCH: If, after all proof on the fact in question has been received, the evidence does not, i......