In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-352 CR
____________________
CARL WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 16,329
A jury convicted Carl Williams of assault on a correctional officer. The jury found two enhancement paragraphs to be "true" and sentenced Williams to thirty years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Williams appeals raising three points of error. Because all issues are settled, our opinion only advises the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4
Point of error one claims the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Armond Paul Merillat identifying Williams as being the same person whose fingerprints appear in four pen packets introduced into evidence by the State. On appeal, Williams contends the State failed to establish Merillat was an expert. The objection was untimely and thus nothing has been preserved for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Point of error one is overruled.
Point of error two contends the evidence is factually and legally insufficient to prove Williams was the person convicted in F88-95221-VH. Williams' argument under this point is premised upon our first finding that Merillat's testimony was inadmissible. Because we have not done so, point of error two is also overruled.
Point of error three argues the evidence is legally insufficient to prove the first offense of the enhancement paragraphs had become final before the second enhancement offense was committed because the judgment introduced is illegible. The copy of the pen packet from F99-71406-TQ contained in the record on appeal is in fact illegible. (1) However, we have supplemented our record with the original and found it legible. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). It reflects the date of offense as May 3, 1999. The prior conviction occurred on November 22, 1988. Accordingly, there was some evidence from which the jury could find both enhancement paragraphs to be "true." Point of error three is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 21, 2003
Opinion Delivered February 12, 2003
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.
1. The State acknowledged this in its brief but failed to request supplementation.