Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00356-CR
Daniel CASAS,
Appellant
v.
The State of
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011CR8563
Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 2, 2014
AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant, Daniel Casas, guilty of failing to comply with sex offender
registration requirements. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant asserts the evidence is legally
insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, appellant was indicted on three counts. He pled guilty/no contest to Count Two
of the indictment—indecency with a child—and was sentenced to ten years’ probation. At the
time he completed probation, Texas law required appellant to register as a sex offender for ten
04-13-00356-CR
years upon completion of probation. Appellant complied with this registration requirement and
was discharged from the sex offender registration program in March 2005. Effective September
2005, the Texas Legislature amended the sex offender registration program to require sex
offenders with certain reportable convictions or adjudications, including indecency with a child,
to register for life. 1
In 2006, appellant was granted an expunction with respect to Count Three of the
indictment. However, there was no expunction of Count Two of the indictment, which was for
indecency with a child and to which appellant pled guilty/no contest. Due to a clerical error, the
Bexar County District Clerk destroyed the entire case records rather than the records pertaining
solely to Count Three. This caused the Bexar County District Clerk’s records to erroneously
display that all charges against appellant had been expunged from his record. The error went
undiscovered until 2011, when it was brought to the attention of Detective Rodolfo Gomez of the
San Antonio Police Department’s Sex Crimes Unit. Upon realizing appellant was not currently
registered but was required to do so, Detective Gomez called appellant to inform him of his duty
to register. Appellant referred Detective Gomez to his attorney who told Detective Gomez that
appellant was no longer required to register pursuant to an expunction order. Detective Gomez
forwarded the expunction order to the Department of Public Safety, which confirmed appellant
was required to register as a sex offender for life.
Shortly thereafter, Detective Gomez learned appellant resided outside the San Antonio
Police Department’s jurisdiction and forwarded appellant’s information to the Bexar County
Sheriff. Bexar County Sheriff Detective Buddy Enriquez called appellant on June 13, 2011, and
1
It is undisputed appellant failed to register for the sex offender registration program after the 2005 amendment went
into effect. However, the State did not seek to prosecute appellant for the time he was unregistered prior to the San
Antonio Police Department and Bexar County Sheriff contacting him in 2011.
-2-
04-13-00356-CR
again informed him of his requirement to register. The next day, Detective Enriquez visited
appellant at his residence. Detective Enriquez once again informed appellant of his requirement
to register and informed him that his expunction with respect to Count Three did not relieve this
registration requirement. Before leaving, Detective Enriquez scheduled an appointment for
appellant to register, but appellant failed to appear. A warrant was issued and appellant was
arrested for failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements.
Appellant filed a pretrial motion in limine arguing all records from his 1991 case do not
legally exist and cannot be mentioned in court pursuant to section 55.04 of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure, which criminalizes a knowing release, dissemination, or any other use of
expunged records or files. The trial court held a pretrial hearing on appellant’s motion where it
heard testimony from Beatrice Gonzalez, Bexar County District Clerk Division Chief; Melissa
Plate, Bexar County District Clerk Senior Division Chief; and Lilian Cronk, retired Bexar County
District Clerk Supervisor. Their testimony established the Bexar County District Clerk destroyed
all physical records pertaining to appellant’s 1991 case. However, Plate testified that during her
research of this case, copies of the erroneously destroyed records were found on microfilm. The
Bexar County District Clerk provided the State with certified copies of these public records. The
trial court denied appellant’s motion and ruled the certified copies were self-authenticating
documents. A jury found appellant guilty of failing to comply with sex offender registration
requirements, and the trial court assessed punishment at eight years’ deferred adjudication.
On appeal, appellant asserts the State failed to introduce properly authenticated evidence
showing he was required to register as a sex offender. As such, he contends the evidence was
legally insufficient to support a conviction for failing to comply with sex offender registration
requirements.
-3-
04-13-00356-CR
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
1. Standard of Review
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must view “the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict” and determine whether “any rational trier of fact would have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the
jury’s credibility and weight determination because the trier of fact is the sole judge of the witness’
credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Brown v.
State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
2. Analysis
Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure defines the scope and requirements
of Texas’s sex offender registration program. A person commits the offense of failing to comply
with registration requirements if the person is required to register and fails to comply with any
requirement of Chapter 62. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 62.102(a) (West 2008). A person is
required to register with the local law enforcement authority in any municipality or county where
he resides or intends to reside for more than seven days if he has a “reportable conviction or
adjudication.” Id. art. 62.051(a). A reportable conviction or adjudication is a conviction or
adjudication for specifically identified offenses containing a sexual component. See id. art.
62.001(5)(a) (including indecency with a child as reportable conviction or adjudication).
To establish that a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt 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). No specific document
or mode of proof is required to prove these elements. Id. While a certified copy of a final judgment
and sentence may be preferred, the State may prove both elements by a number of different ways,
-4-
04-13-00356-CR
including (1) the defendant’s admission or stipulation, (2) testimony by a person who was present
when the person was convicted of the specified crime and can identify the defendant as the person
convicted, or (3) documentary proof that contains sufficient information to establish both the
existence of a prior conviction and the defendant’s identity as the person convicted. Id.
There is no dispute appellant failed to register with the local law enforcement authority.
The issue in this case is whether the State proved appellant had a reportable conviction or
adjudication requiring appellant to register as a sex offender. Specifically, appellant argues the
Bexar County District Clerk’s erroneous destruction of his entire case file required the State to
recreate computer entries relying on “records that were not part of the court record, but instead
were parsed together through business record affidavits . . . .” Appellant asserts the records offered
by the State used to prove his underlying indecency with a child offense were (1) not properly
authenticated and should have not been admitted into evidence, and (2) even if the records were
properly admitted, the records were insufficient to establish a prior reportable conviction or
adjudication.
The State did not present a certified copy of the final judgment and sentence, and appellant
did not admit or stipulate to his prior offense. Nor was testimony given by a person present when
appellant was convicted. Instead, the State relied on documentary proof to establish a prior
conviction existed and to link appellant to that offense. To do so, the State introduced a total of
twelve exhibits into the record. Although appellant fails to specifically identify in his brief which
records he complains were not properly authenticated, the record reflects appellant objected to the
authentication of State’s Exhibits 1, 3, and 5, all of which are documents recovered by the Bexar
County District Clerk from appellant’s 1991 offense (trial court cause number 91-CR-0486).
During the trial, Plate testified as to the general duties and expunction procedures of the
Bexar County District Clerk. Although the Bexar County District Clerk destroyed the original
-5-
04-13-00356-CR
records related to appellant’s non-expunged charges, copies of the erroneously destroyed records
were retrieved via microfilm. The State introduced certified copies bearing the District Clerk’s
seal and signature, which the trial court accepted as self-authenticating certified copies of public
records. Under Texas Rule of Evidence 902(4), a document is self-authenticating if it is
accompanied by a certificate from the custodian or manager of the public records who certifies
them as a true and correct copy of the original. TEX. R. EVID. 902(4); see also Flowers, 220 S.W.3d
at 922–23 (stating “[r]ule 902 of the Texas Rules of Evidence explicitly allows for the self-
authentication of certified copies of public records”). Appellant fails to explain how such
documents were not properly authenticated and provides no authority for such argument.
Accordingly, we disagree with appellant’s argument that the documents introduced as evidence
were not properly authenticated and conclude they were self-authenticating documents under Rule
902. We next determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a prior reportable
conviction or adjudication existed, and whether the defendant was sufficiently linked to that
conviction.
State’s Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the “Agreed Order of Expunction.” It provides
appellant is entitled to expunction with respect to Count Three of the indictment in trial court cause
number 91-CR-0486. State’s Exhibit 3 is a certified copy of the “Order” granting appellant early
termination of probation. State’s Exhibit 5 is a certified copy of “Defendant’s Waivers and
Affidavit of Admonitions,” which was signed by appellant and shows he pled guilty/no contest to
indecency with a child.
In addition to these documents, the State introduced several other exhibits that contain
sufficient information to establish both the existence of a prior conviction and appellant’s identity
as the person convicted. Without objection from appellant, the State also introduced State’s
Exhibit 9, which includes appellant’s sex offender registration records from the San Antonio Police
-6-
04-13-00356-CR
Department’s Sex Crimes Unit. The records contain appellant’s name, address, driver’s license
number, social security number, telephone number, fingerprints, and a picture of appellant dated
October 2002.
State’s Exhibit 16 contains appellant’s employment records from the City of Lacoste,
introduced as business records authenticated by affidavit. The first page of State’s Exhibit 16 is
the “Order Deferring Adjudication of Guilt and Granting Adult Probation (Non-Jury),” showing
appellant was sentenced to ten years’ deferred adjudication for indecency with a child.
Finally, State’s Exhibit 18 consists of business records maintained by the Department of
Public Safety and introduced as a certified public document along with an affidavit from the
custodian of records. The first document in State’s Exhibit 18 is a redacted copy of the 1991
indictment showing appellant was charged with indecency with a child. The second document is
a duplicate of State’s Exhibit 16 showing appellant was sentenced to ten years’ deferred
adjudication for indecency with a child. The third document is appellant’s “Motion for Early
Termination of Probation” stating appellant “was placed on probation by this court on the 5th day
of December, 1991, for a period of ten (10) years for the offense of indecency with a child.” The
final document is a duplicate of State’s Exhibit 3, “Order” granting early termination of probation.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational trier
of fact could have found that appellant had a reportable adjudication, was required to register under
Chapter 62, and failed to register with the Bexar County Sheriff.
-7-
04-13-00356-CR
CONCLUSION
We conclude the evidence in this case was properly authenticated and was legally sufficient
to support appellant’s conviction for failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Do not publish
-8-
Daniel Casas v. State
Combined Opinion