Murrell Ray Bridges v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-06-00418-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 13, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Murrell Ray Bridges appealed a ruling from the 415th District Court of Parker County, contesting the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss Enhancement Paragraph One of the indictment. Bridges argued that the prior conviction referenced in this enhancement was insufficiently connected to him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

Bridges was indicted for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on November 19, 2004. Following an amendment to the indictment, his punishment range was elevated to that of a habitual offender. Bridges pled guilty to the DWI charge and acknowledged two prior DWI convictions relevant for jurisdiction. During the punishment phase, evidence was presented concerning previous DWI convictions from Palo Pinto, Parker, and Runnels counties, detailed in two enhancement paragraphs: 

- Enhancement Paragraph One cited a felony DWI conviction on January 30, 2001, in Tarrant County (Cause No. 0792234W).
- Enhancement Paragraph Two included two violations of the Certificate of Title Act from August 18, 1995, in Palo Pinto County (Cause Nos. 10,107 and 10,106).

Detective Turnbow testified regarding Enhancement Paragraph One, confirming she compared Bridges' fingerprints from State's Exhibit 16 with those in a certified Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) pen packet (State's Exhibit 14). She established that both sets were from Bridges. The exhibit included various documents, such as photographs, judgments from his previous convictions, and a fingerprint card. For Enhancement Paragraph Two, she similarly compared Bridges' fingerprints and verified their identity.

State's Exhibit 13 was admitted into evidence, containing eight pages including: a TDCJ certification page, photographs of Bridges with his TDCJ ID, judgments for two separate violations of the Certificate of Title Act, a judgment revoking Bridges's probation for felony DWI, and a fingerprint card with his personal information. Following the State's case-in-chief, Bridges moved to dismiss the first enhancement paragraph, which the court denied. Bridges's witnesses, including family members, testified about his prior convictions, acknowledging his two prison sentences for DWI offenses. Upton, Bridges's sister, identified additional judgments related to his misdemeanor DWI convictions, which were also admitted without objection. The jury found the enhancement paragraphs true and sentenced Bridges to 99 years' confinement. Bridges's motion to dismiss was effectively a request for an instructed verdict, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The court reviews evidence favorably to the judgment to determine if a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The State was required to prove the enhancement paragraph beyond a reasonable doubt, with judgments and sentences or their functional equivalents serving as sufficient proof.

A 'pen packet' serves as evidence of a prior conviction, containing the inmate's record from the penitentiary. For the conviction to be admissible, it must not only exist but also be linked to the defendant, as established in Beck v. State. Certified copies of the judgment, sentence, and records from the Texas Department of Corrections, including fingerprints, are required, but these alone may not suffice unless paired with independent evidence confirming the defendant's identity as the convicted individual. Various means to prove identity include: (1) testimony from a witness who knows the defendant and the conviction; (2) the defendant's stipulation or judicial admission of the conviction; (3) certified documents with expert fingerprint comparisons; and (4) comparison of the defendant's appearance with records containing photos and descriptions. The methods for establishing prior convictions are not exhaustive, and cases are evaluated on an individual basis to determine sufficiency of identity proof, allowing for unconventional methods. Photographic evidence and identification details such as name, sex, and physical characteristics can also substantiate identity. Handwriting authentication can be performed by experts or the jury.

Proof of authenticity for handwriting or signatures can be established through comparison with other writing samples unless the appellant contests their authenticity under oath. However, mere comparison of signatures without additional evidence linking the defendant to a prior conviction is insufficient for admissibility. In the case at hand, the State argues that Bridges waived his right to challenge the dismissal of Enhancement Paragraph One, misinterpreting his claim as an indictment defect rather than an evidentiary failure to prove identity. Unlike Jones v. State, where a defect in the indictment was claimed, Bridges asserts the State did not sufficiently prove that he was the same individual previously convicted. Legal sufficiency challenges do not need to be raised in trial to be preserved for appeal. 

The State presented several pieces of evidence to connect Bridges to his prior conviction, including:
1. Testimony from Detective Turnbow confirming that Bridges' fingerprints matched those in the TDCJ pen packet.
2. The pen packet indicated Bridges' prior DWI conviction, aligning with the enhancement allegation.
3. The pen packet certification matched Bridges' TDCJ number and listed relevant conviction cause numbers.
4. Case law supports that matching fingerprints to a pen packet is sufficient for establishing multiple convictions.
5. Bridges admitted to a previous conviction for DWI in Palo Pinto County, which is included in the pen packet.
6. The pen packet included photographs of Bridges for jury comparison.
7. Physical description details in evidence matched those in the pen packet.
8. Testimony from Bridges' witnesses regarding his prior convictions and incarceration periods.

These connections were deemed sufficient to establish identity for the enhancement allegation against Bridges.

The case law supports the State's position that a single set of fingerprints in a pen packet can validate multiple convictions. In the case of Cole, the packet contained certified records from the Texas Department of Corrections for Johnny Lerl Cole, including five separate convictions and one set of fingerprints. An expert confirmed that these fingerprints matched those taken from the appellant on the trial date, thus linking the appellant to the packet. The court has established that fingerprints serve as a means of confirming the identity of the person on trial concerning the entire packet. 

The appellant argued that the fingerprint cards lacked specific cause numbers and vital statistics to connect them to him, asserting that this rendered the entire pen packet inadmissible. However, the court emphasized that a single set of fingerprints suffices to corroborate multiple convictions in the packet. Testimony from Deputy Max Chester, a fingerprint expert, confirmed that the fingerprints matched those taken from the appellant on the trial day. Additionally, the certification page of the packet included cause numbers for all five convictions, demonstrating sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's identity in relation to the judgments and sentences. 

Similar evidence was presented for Anthony Dwight Sanders, where an expert matched fingerprints from the packet to those taken from him. The court reiterated that the method of proof regarding fingerprints has been consistently upheld. After reviewing the evidence and applicable law, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the enhancement paragraph related to the appellant's convictions, affirming the trial court's judgment.