Campos, Javier Noel , 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 776 ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. PD-0054-15, PD-0055-15, PD-0056-15
JAVIER NOEL CAMPOS, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam. Newell, J., not participating.
OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of three counts of aggravated sexual assault, and sentenced
him to sixty-eight years imprisonment on each count. At trial, the State was allowed to
impeach appellant, over objection, with a conviction that was more than ten years old.
The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s actions by applying the common law
tacking doctrine to the remote conviction, and assessing its admissibility under Texas Rule
of Evidence 609(a)’s “outweigh” standard rather than Rule of Evidence 609(b)’s
CAMPOS PD-0054-15, PD-0055-15, PD-0056-15
“substantially outweigh” standard. Campos v. State, Nos. 01-13-00415-CR, 01-13-00416-
CR, 01-13-00417-CR slip op. at 47-51 (Tex. App.–Houston [1 st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2015).
Applying Rule 609(a), the court of appeals upheld the admission of the prior remote
conviction. Id. at 51.
Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently
addressed this issue in Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166, 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), in
which we held that the unambiguous plain language of Rule of Evidence 609 supplants the
common-law tacking doctrine. Under Rule 609(b), evidence of a prior conviction is
inadmissible to impeach a witness “if more than ten years has elapsed since the later of the
date of conviction or release of the witness from confinement imposed for that conviction
‘unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the
conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect.’” Id. at 170-71.
The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in
Meadows. Accordingly, we grant ground (9) of appellant’s petition for discretionary review,
vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals
in light of our opinion in Meadows.1
Delivered July 29, 2015
Publish
1
Grounds (1) - (8) and grounds (10) - (13) of appellant’s petition for discretionary review
are refused with prejudice.