Anthony Lois Coleman A/K/A Anthony Louis Harrison v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 5, 2009
• Docket: 01-08-00627-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 5, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-08-00627-CR

ANTHONY LOIS COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

                                             Harris County, Texas     

Trial Court Cause No. 1151311

MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Anthony Coleman was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, enhanced by a prior conviction of aggravated sexual assault.  He pleaded not true to the enhancement, but the trial court found it to be true, resulting in an automatic punishment of confinement for life.  Coleman appeals his punishment, alleging that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the enhancement.  We affirm.

Background

On the evening of March 13, 2003, D.M., a fifteen-year-old girl, was riding the bus home after visiting a friend.  She fell asleep on the bus, but was awakened before her stop by Coleman, who was also riding the bus.  She had never seen Coleman before, but she was grateful that he had awakened her and that she had not missed her stop.  D.M. and Coleman both got off of the bus near D.M.’s home, and Coleman asked her if she smoked marijuana.  She said that she did, and he invited her to go to a nearby park to smoke some with him.  D.M. told Coleman that she was sixteen, even though she was really fifteen.  They walked through the park together, but when they got to a dark, secluded area near a ditch, Coleman pulled out a knife and orally and anally raped D.M.  As soon as Coleman was far enough away, D.M. got up and ran to her grandmother’s house.  Doctors examined D.M. at the Children’s Assessment Center and observed a laceration on her anus consistent with blunt force trauma.  Doctors also administered a rape kit, which showed sperm in D.M.’s anus, later determined to be a match to Coleman’s DNA.

The jury found Coleman guilty of aggravated sexual assault.  At the punishment phase, the State introduced evidence that Coleman had previously been convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1993.  Coleman plead not true to the enhancement.  The State introduced Coleman’s penitentiary (pen) packet from his prior conviction, which included the judgment and sentence, fingerprints, a physical description, and a photograph.[1]  Deputy R. Schield testified for the State as a fingerprint expert.  The State asked Schield if he had formed an opinion about whether the fingerprints in the pen packet matched fingerprints taken from Coleman.  Schield testified that he had formed such an opinion, but he never said what his opinion was and whether the two sets of fingerprints were a match.  The trial court found the enhancement to be true, and assessed punishment accordingly, giving Coleman an automatic life sentence.

Discussion

Coleman contends on appeal that the proof of the prior conviction is legally and factually insufficient to support an enhanced sentence because Schield never testified that the fingerprints in the pen packet matched Coleman’s fingerprints.  When evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  When evaluating factual sufficiency, we consider all the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  We set the verdict aside only if (1) the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or (2) the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.  Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Before the State may use an enhancement paragraph to increase a defendant’s range of punishment, it must prove that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Magic v. State, 217 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).  To establish 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.  Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).  There are multiple ways the State may prove that a conviction is final and is true beyond a reasonable doubt, including (1) a defendant’s admission or stipulation, (2) testimony by a person who was present when the person was convicted of the specified crime and who can identify the defendant as that person, or (3) documentary proof, such as a judgment, that contains sufficient information to establish the existence of a prior conviction and the defendant’s identity as the person convicted.  Id. at 921–22; Littles v. State, 726 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

          Here, the State used the third method to establish the prior conviction by admitting Coleman’s pen packet, which included the judgment from his prior conviction.  Coleman argues that, without testimony that his fingerprints are the same as the fingerprints in the pen packet, the pen packet is insufficient evidence to sustain the enhancement.  He relies on the rule that certified copies of the judgment and sentence are insufficient by themselves to connect the defendant to the prior convictions, even when the name on the prior conviction is the same as the defendant’s name.  See Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).  While this is correct, Coleman fails to recognize the rule that photographs, especially when coupled with a physical description, can sufficiently connect the defendant to the prior conviction.  Littles, 726 S.W.2d at 32; Flowers, 220 S.W.3d at 925; Simms v. State, 848 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d); Spaulding v. State, 896 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, ­­­­­­no pet.).  Here, the pen packet contained front and side photographs and a physical description of the person convicted.  The trial court had the ability to look at the photographs, compare them to Coleman’s physical appearance, and come to the conclusion that the photos depicted Coleman.  See id.  Additionally, the pen packet contained a physical description of the convicted person, including his height, weight, hair, and eye color, that the court could compare to Coleman’s physical features.  Flowers, 220 S.W.3d at 925; Spaulding, 896 S.W.2d at 591.  Thus, the evidence supports the enhancement, even without testimony that the fingerprints in the pen packet matched Coleman’s.

Conclusion

We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the enhancement.  We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                          Jane Bland

                                                          Justice

Panel consists of Judges Taft, Bland, and Sharp.

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.4

---

[1] Coleman was previously convicted under the name Anthony Harrison, which he admitted was his real name during the punishment phase of the trial in this case.