Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 6, 2016
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01416-CR
HAROLD QUINNTIN PRATT, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 416-82573-2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Stoddart, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Francis
Harold Quinntin Pratt, Jr. entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial
court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at
eighteen years in prison. In one issue, appellant challenges the trial court’s use of an
arrest/booking record to prove the identity prong of the enhancement allegation. We affirm.
Asmerom Tesfamichael was a clerk at a 7-Eleven store. At about 3 a.m. on June 11,
2012, appellant entered the store wearing a mask over his face, pointed a gun at Tesfamichael,
and robbed him of the store’s cash and lottery tickets. After indictment, the State filed a notice
of intent to enhance appellant’s punishment with a February 14, 2011 conviction for burglary of
a habitation in cause number F-0644216-T in the 283rd Judicial District Court.
Appellant pleaded not true to the enhancement allegation. State’s exhibit 5, the judgment
adjudicating guilt in F-0644216-T and supporting documents, did not contain legible
fingerprints. Consequently, at the hearing, the State presented proof appellant was the same
person previously convicted through a Dallas County “jail pack.” The jail pack contained a ten-
print card listing the name Harold Q. Pratt, date of birth, the number “F0644216,” and
appellant’s DPS State Identification Number (SID). This information mirrored that in State’s
exhibit 5. Michael Smith, felony investigator for the Collin County District Attorney’s Office,
testified he took appellant’s fingerprints the day before and compared them to prints in various
documents, including the jail pack. Smith said the prints matched.
Appellant objected to the admission of State’s exhibit 5 as “missing an essential
component,” the fingerprint. He objected to the admission of the county jail records on hearsay
grounds because the records contained information of the enhancement offense and would show
the “enhancement is valid.” The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the prior
judgment, the county jail records, and appellant’s fingerprint card completed the day before. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the enhancement allegation true and assessed
punishment accordingly.
On appeal, appellant argues the trial court relied on “improper evidence,” the county jail
records, when finding the enhancement allegation true. He urges this Court to “adopt a new
legal standard whereby county jail records would be allowable only when a final conviction led
to incarceration in the county jail.” We decline to do so.
Texas law does not require the existence of a prior conviction or linking of the defendant
to the prior conviction to be proven in any specific manner. Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919,
921–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The State may use “[a]ny type of evidence, documentary or
testimonial.” Id. at 922. The existence of a prior conviction and linking of the defendant to the
–2–
prior conviction may be established by certified copies of the prior judgment and sentence and
records of the State containing fingerprints of the individual previously convicted, supported by
expert testimony identifying those fingerprints as identical to known fingerprints of the
defendant. See Vessels v. State, 432 S.W.2d 108, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (op. on reh'g); see
also Griffin v. State, 181 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd).
The evidence offered, however, may include linking the defendant to the prior conviction with
records from the county jail that include fingerprints of the accused. See Garner v. State, 864
S.W.2d 92, 97 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d) (using judgment and sentence in
prior felony conviction, copy of county “jail card” with defendant’s prints, and defendant’s
known prints to prove appellant was same person previously convicted).
Here, the State proved appellant was the same person previously convicted of burglary of
a habitation by (1) offering the judgment adjudicating guilt, (2) collecting contemporaneous
fingerprints from appellant and linking them to his certified jail pack, and (3) establishing the
identifying information in the judgment (offense charged, cause number, and appellant’s SID)
matched the information on the jail card. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by considering the jail card as part of the proof. We overrule the sole issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
151416F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
HAROLD QUINNTIN PRATT, JR., On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District
Appellant Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 416-82573-2013.
No. 05-15-01416-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis;
Justices Stoddart and Schenck participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered October 6, 2016.
–4–
Harold Quinntin Pratt, Jr. v. State
Combined Opinion