Larry Wayne Williams v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 14, 2000
• Docket: 10-99-00097-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Larry Wayne Williams v. The State of Texas

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-99-097-CR

     LARRY WAYNE WILLIAMS,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee

From the 16th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court # F-98-0139-A

O P I N I O N

      Appellant Williams appeals from his conviction for felony Driving While Intoxicated, enhanced by a prior felony conviction.

      Appellant was charged with felony DWI, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, i.e. aggravated robbery in Cause No. 5743 in Bastrop County on November 4, 1980.

      A jury convicted appellant of felony DWI, and found the enhancement paragraph “true.” Appellant elected to have the judge assess punishment. The judge assessed appellant 15 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, and sentenced appellant accordingly.

      Appellant appeals on two points of error:

      Point 1: “The evidence is legally insufficient to support the court’s finding of True to the enhancement paragraph.”

      Point 2: “The evidence is factually insufficient to support the court’s finding of True to the enhancement paragraph.”

      Appellant makes no complaint to the jury’s finding of guilty to the basic charge of felony DWI. His only complaint is to the jury’s finding of “True” to the aggravated robbery conviction in Bastrop County on November 4, 1980.

      The standard of review for legal sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 319; Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

      In reviewing a claim of factual insufficiency of the evidence, this court does not view the evidence through the prism of “in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Blount v. State, 961 S.W.2d 282, 285 (Tex. App.—Houston 1997, pet ref’d.). This court will review all the evidence addressed and set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

      Specifically appellant complains that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to State’s Exhibit 5. Appellant asserts that the State failed to tie appellant to Exhibit 5, a pen packet bearing his name.

      State’s Exhibit 5 is a pen packet containing three judgments. Two of the judgments reflect that appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery in Williamson County, and the third judgment reflects that appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery in Cause No. 5743 in Bastrop County on November 4, 1980. The pen packet contains appellant’s picture, the fingerprints of Larry Wayne Williams, and reflects that Larry Wayne Williams was received from Bastrop County for Aggravated Robbery to do a sentence of 20 years.

      The State offered expert testimony to tie appellant to the pen packet. Witness Russell Lewis qualified as an expert in fingerprint identification. He was asked to compare fingerprints taken of appellant on the day of trial to the fingerprints in the pen packet. Lewis testified that the fingerprints of appellant matched the fingerprints in the pen packet.

      Moreover, the Records Clerk of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division certified that the pen packet belonged to appellant. On the first page of Exhibit 5, the Clerk certified that the photographs, fingerprints, and commitments contained within the pen packet all belonged to appellant, including the judgment from Bastrop County.

      The pen packet was admissible in evidence, and the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that the enhancement paragraph was “True.” All of appellant’s points and contentions thereunder are overruled.

      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                         FRANK G. McDONALD

                                                                         Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Gray, and

      Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 14, 2000

Do not publish