Sanders, Dennis v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 25, 2006
• Docket: 14-04-00537-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00537-CR

DENNIS SANDERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 45,474

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Dennis Sanders of possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility and sentenced appellant as a habitual offender to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  In his sole point of error, appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion by admitting State=s Exhibits 1 and 4, penitentiary packets, over his hearsay objection.

During the punishment hearing, the State offered penitentiary packets marked State=s Exhibits 1 through 4 into evidence.  Appellant concedes no objection was made to the State=s Exhibit 2 or 3.  Appellant objected to State=s Exhibits 1 and 4 on the grounds of hearsay.  Specifically, defense counsel stated, Athey are hearsay because the judgments contained inside the pen packet are not certified by the clerk of the Court that issued the judgments.@ The trial court overruled the objection and admitted State=s Exhibits 1 and 4.

The record reflects State=s Exhibit 1 and 4 were each certified by the Chairman of Classification and Records for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Therefore, the pen packets were properly authenticated and a separate certification by the district clerk of the trial court was unnecessary for them to be admissible.  See State v. Handsbur, 816 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  See also Jones v. State, 825 S.W.2d 529, 532-33  (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1992, pet. ref=d) (Pen packet containing an order that was uncertified by the district clerk of the convicting court was not inadmissible hearsay).  Appellant=s point of error is overruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).