Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...

specifics of the sentence and the amount of time served. Further, the printout is properly
authenticated by the Dallas County Clerk in accordance with evidentiary rule 902(4). The other
document offered was a certified copy of defendant's DL record.
B. PRIORS FOR WHICH DEFERRED ADJUDICATION GIVEN
Brown v. State, 716 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).[reversed on other grounds].
Order of DFAJ is admrssrb le in punishment phase of trial regardless of whether probation has been
completed. (Applies in general, not specific to DWI prosecution).
C. USE OF DPS RECORDS TO PROVE PRIORS
1. FOR PURPOSE OF TYING DEFENDANT TO J & S
Gibson v. State, 952 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, no pet.).
Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997 no pet. h.).
Spauldino v. State, 896 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1995, no pet.).
Abbrino v. State, 882 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no pet.).
Lopez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.).
Use of DPS records to tie defendant to priors is proper.
2. DPS RECORDS ALONE WTHOUT J & S . NOT ENOUGH
Gentile v. State, 848 S.W.2d 359 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, no pet.).
Use ofDPS records alone without judgment and sentence is not sufficient to prove enhanced priors.
3. DPS RECORDS NOT EXCLUDABLE UNDER COLE
Tanner v. State, 875 S.W.2d 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1994, pet. ref'd).
Driving records prepared by DPS do not fall under the exclusion of 803(8)b) described in Cole v.
Sfafe.
D. FA)GD COPY OF JUDGMENT & SENTENCE ADMISSIBLE
Enqlund v. State, 907 SJru.2d g37 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1995) affirmed 946 S.W.2d 64
(Tex.Crim.App. 1997).
Court held that requirements of Rules 1001 (3), 10A1 U), & 901 (a) & (b)(7) of the Texas Rules of
Criminal Evidence were met when faxed judgment and sentence were offered in lieu of originals.
1"28