X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In an opinion and judgment dated April 6, this court reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered an acquittal in favor of the defendant. The state filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc. The court grants the motion for rehearing, withdraws its opinion and judgment of April 6, and issues this opinion and judgment in its place. The state charged defendant with driving while intoxicated and alleged defendant had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated by a court in Illinois. A jury found defendant guilty as alleged in the information. The trial court adjudged defendant guilty of “driving while intoxicated-2D,” and assessed punishment at 10 months of confinement. HOLDING:The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of conviction, reverses the judgment as to punishment and remands the cause for a new hearing on punishment. Ordinarily, a driving-while-intoxicated offense under Texas Penal Code 49.04 is a Class B misdemeanor. A 49.04 offense may be enhanced to a Class A misdemeanor under 49.09 if “it is shown on trial of the offense that the person has previously been convicted one time of an offense relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.” A prior conviction may be proven by certified copies of a judgment and sentence and authenticated copies of records from the Texas Department of Corrections or other correctional institution, including fingerprints, supported by expert testimony matching them to the defendant. The state also may offer: 1. testimony from a witness who personally knows the defendant and the fact of his prior conviction; 2. the defendant’s stipulations or judicial admissions; or 3. the defendant’s photograph in a penitentiary packet or other official record. Here, the state relied on a computer printout entitled “Case Synopsis,” which it contends is a judgment. However, the synopsis is not entitled “Judgment,” does not indicate the name of the court and does not identify the presiding judge. Nothing in the record supports the state’s contention that the synopsis represents a judgment of conviction. The state introduced no other evidence of the 1993 conviction, and the defendant repeatedly denied such a conviction. When a defendant is charged with a Class A misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, the prior driving-while-intoxicated conviction is treated as an enhancement provision of the information and not an element of a separate offense. Because there is no evidence supporting an enhanced punishment, the court reverses the judgment as to punishment. OPINION:Sandee Bryan Marion, J.; Stone, Duncan and Marion, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.