AFFiRM; Opinion issued November 13, 2012
In The
(!Iuurt uf prt1
Fiffl )istrict uf exa at Oa1ta
No. 05-11-00933-CR
WILLIAM EDWARD WRIGhT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F09-59758-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Murphy
Opinion By Justice Morris
Following his jury conviction for aggravated sexual assaLilt. William Edward Wright
complains that the trial court erred in using two previous convictions to enhance his punishment
because the State failed to prove the previous convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and
therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
Appellant argues in a single point of error that the trial court erred in using two previous
convictions to enhance his punishment to an automatic life sentence because the State failed to prove
he committed those previous convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. To show a defendant has been
convicted of a previous ollense. the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the
previous conviction exists and that the defendant is linked to that conviction. Flowers v. Slate, 220
S.W.3d 919. 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). No specific document or method of proof is required to
prove these two elements. Id. Regardless of the type of evidentiary items the State offers to
establish the existence of a previous conviction and its link to a specific defendant, the trier of fact
looks at the totality of the evidence admitted to determine the two elements. lithe two elements can
be found beyond a reasonable doubt, then the combined evidence is necessarily legally sufficient to
prove the previous conviction. See Id. at 923.
Appellant complains the evidence in his case is insufficient to connect him to the previous
offenses because, although a fingerprint expert was able to match appellant’s current fingerprints
with fingerprints fi)und in his pen packet from the state of Missouri, the State failed to link the pen
packet fingerprints to the Missouri judgment showing his previous convictions for rape and sodomy.
He complains there is a disparity among the documents about his correct birth date. And he
complains the judgment in the pen packet showing his previous rape and sodomy’ convictions does
not match the certified copy of the judgment also offered into evidence by the State.
Appellant is identified in the Missouri pen packet records as offender number 160425. The
records show a man with his name was convicted of rape and sodomy on May 15, 1987 and was
imprisoned on May 20. 1987. His “face sheet” for the department of corrections lists his name,
offender number, and social security number, in addition to his two ten-year consecutive sentences
and his “received” date of May 20. 1987. The “face sheet” also shows that he convicted of rape
and sodomy on IVlay 15. 1987. The social security number listed on the face sheet corresponds with
the social security number listed on other documentary evidence showing appellant’s time served
in Dallas County for the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The 1)allas County
documents also contain a photograph of appellant and a set of fingerprints that the fingerprint expert
was unable to analyze.
The fingerprints included in the Missouri pen packet do not reference a specific offense, but
appellant’s name, race, and offender number are included, in addition to a handwritten date of “5-20-
87” near the signature of the person who took the prints. Moreover, the pen packet contains a
photograph of appellant showing that he was received on 5-20-87” for the crimes of rape and
sodomy and received a sentence of “20-10, 10” years, which corresponds to the sentence in the
written judgment contained in the pen packet. That judgment lists appellant’s punishment for his
convictions for ‘COUNT I - RAPE: COUNT TI - SODOMY” as ‘l0 years under Count I and 10
years under Count II said counts to run consecutively with each other.” The judgment is also
stamped with appellant’s offender number. Viewing all these documents together. we conclude the
evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was correctly linked to the rape and
sodomy offenses.
It is true that appellant’s birth year varies from 1947 to 1955 to 1945 among the various
documents showing his previous convictions. The birth date, however, of August 2 is consistent
among all the documents. In addition, there are minor differences between the certified judgment
showing appellant’s rape and sodomy convictions and the judgment contained in the pen packet.
Although the State did not offer any evidence to explain the discrepancies, the differences are not
material to proving the fact of the previous convictions.
Viewing the evidence as a whole. we conclude it is legally sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that appellant committed the previous rape and sodomy offenses. The trial court
did not err in using the convictions to enhance appellant’s sentence. We overrule appellant’s sole
point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
JOS FIB ORRIS E
EjusfICE
I)o Not Publish
Ttx. R. App. P.47
1 10933F.LJO5
-4--
uf ApptaI
tnirt
ifti! Ottrirt uf xa at aIta
JUDGMENT
WILLIAM EDWARD WRIGHT. Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court No.
4 of Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F09-
No. 05-11-00933-CR V. 59758-K).
Opinion delivered by Justice Morris,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Murphy participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 13. 2012.