Justice, concurring.
I respectfully concur in the judgment only. The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider appellant’s prior convictions only to determine appellant’s credibility or intent, or to rebut appellant’s defensive theory. Appellant preserved error based on Rule 609,1 but did not preserve error regarding admissibility pursuant to Rule 404(b).2
The majority concludes that, when evidence has been admitted properly for a limited purpose, but is admitted erroneously for an additional limited purpose, a harm analysis is appropriate. If evidence is admitted for the wrong reason, but is admissible for a different reason, we do not consider this reversible error, nor do we conduct a harm analysis. See Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). Because I can discern no difference between evidence erroneously admitted for all purposes and evidence erroneously admitted for a limited purpose, when the evidence is properly admitted under a different rule and the State offers *218alternative bases for admission, I see no reason to depart from Romero's rule.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment without conducting a harm analysis.
. Convictions for felonies may be admissible to impeach a witness’s credibility for truthfulness. See Tex.R. Evid. 609(a).
. Evidence of other crimes may be admissible for proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. See Tex.R. Evid. 404(b).