Joseph Nanus v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 4, 1994
• Docket: 03-93-00351-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN



NO. 3-93-351-CR

JOSEPH NANUS,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0924504, HONORABLE MIKE LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

The district court found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated, third offense, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for five years and $1000 fine. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6701l-1 (West Supp. 1994). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.

Appellant's first point of error is that the court fundamentally erred by admitting the evidence of his previous convictions. Appellant suggests that he may not have had adequate counsel at the trials of the previous offenses. He also hypothesizes that he may not have been properly admonished of the consequences when he pleaded no contest in those cases. Appellant does not refer us to evidence in the record supporting these suppositions.

The State proved the previous convictions by introducing certified copies of the judgments and sentences. Appellant did not object to these exhibits on the grounds he now advances. Both previous judgments recite that appellant was represented by counsel and admonished of the consequences of his plea. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, these judgments are presumed to be regular. See Chancy v. State, 614 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Point of error one is overruled.

In his second point of error, appellant complains that the court erred by permitting the State to reopen for the purpose of offering an exhibit. A court shall allow testimony to be introduced at any time before argument is concluded if it appears necessary to the due administration of justice. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.02 (West 1981). In this cause, arguments had not concluded when the State was permitted to reopen. Appellant did not object to the reopening. No abuse of discretion is shown. Stout v. State, 500 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Point of error two is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Affirmed

Filed: May 4, 1994

Do Not Publish