eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-06

Darrin Hunter v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                        COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00366-CR
DARRIN HUNTER                                                     APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE
----------
FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. F-2012-1199-C
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
A jury convicted Appellant Darrin Hunter of assault by impeding the breath
or circulation of the complainant, a third-degree felony, 2 and assessed his
punishment at twelve years’ confinement as a repeat offender. The trial court
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2014).
sentenced him accordingly. In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court
reversibly erred in the punishment trial by admitting into evidence several
judgments of conviction that were not sufficiently linked to him. Because the trial
court committed no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. He argues
only that the evidence was not sufficient to link the extraneous offenses—
indecent exposure and driving while intoxicated (DWI)—to him in the punishment
trial. He concedes, however, that the offenses were linked to him by name, date
of birth, race, and gender.     The State was able to link State’s Exhibit 27,
documents pertaining to a criminal trespass of a habitation conviction out of
Dallas County, to Appellant by fingerprints. The fingerprints for State’s Exhibits
21 through 26, however, were too faint to compare. The State was able to match
Appellant’s full name and date of birth, as well as race and gender, to the
challenged exhibits. Appellant objected at trial that the State had not sufficiently
linked the exhibits to Appellant. The trial court overruled his objection. As to the
indecent exposure offenses, Appellant later admitted on the stand that he was
the same person who was referenced in those convictions for indecent exposure.
As to the 1994 DWI offense in State’s Exhibit 26, Appellant testified on cross-
examination that he had committed a DWI twenty to twenty-five years before trial
in the instant case.
2
We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse of
discretion standard. 3 A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision lies
“outside the zone of reasonable disagreement.” 4 We hold that the evidence here
is sufficient to connect the complained-of extraneous offenses to Appellant. 5 We
therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
challenged evidence of the extraneous offenses.
We overrule Appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 11, 2015
3
Martinez v. State,
    327 S.W.3d 727
    , 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert.
denied,
    131 S. Ct. 2966 
    (2011); McDonald v. State,
    179 S.W.3d 571
    , 576 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).
4
Walters v. State,
    247 S.W.3d 204
    , 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
5
See Flowers v. State,
    220 S.W.3d 919
    , 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Miller
v. State,
    33 S.W.3d 257
    , 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
3