Opinion
No. 05-10-01518-CR
Opinion Filed October 24, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-60439-R.
Before Justices MOSELEY, FRANCIS, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Kerry Rydell Jones of burglary of a habitation and assessed his punishment. He appeals from the judgment, bringing two points of error. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We overrule both points and affirm the judgment. In his first issue, Jones asserts that the trial court improperly admitted a recording of a telephone call because it was not properly authenticated. A recording may be authenticated by a witness identifying the speaker's voice. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(5). At trial, Detective Dobson of the Dallas Police Department identified Jones's voice on the telephone call recording based on his interview with Jones after Jones's arrest, the content of the recorded telephone conversation, and Dobson's subsequent review of the recording and a separate audio recording of Jones talking in the police car after he was arrested. Once Dobson identified the voice, the trial court could properly conclude the telephone recording had been authenticated. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(a); Angleton v. State, 971 S.W.2d 65, 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Capps v. State, 244 S.W.3d 520, 530 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref'd). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the recording into evidence. See Angleton, 971 S.W.2d at 67 (admissibility of recorded phone conversation reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). Jones's first point of error is overruled. In his second issue, Jones claims the trial court erred during the punishment phase of his trial when it admitted indictments, informations, judicial confessions, and plea bargain forms from Jones's prior offenses. He asserts that those documents are hearsay and do not fall within one of the hearsay exceptions. Hearsay generally is inadmissible except as provided in the Texas Rules of Evidence. Tex. R. Evid. 802. Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8) excludes some public records from the rule against hearsay. Tex. R. Evid. 803(8). When offered at the punishment stage of the trial, indictments and informations are admissible. See Webb v. State, 840 S.W.2d 543, 548 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no pet.); Dotson v. State, No. 02-03-00463-CR, 2008 WL 2780663, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 17, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (indictments admissible); Barela v. State, No. 08-02-00492-CR, 2004 WL 2192604, at *8 (Tex. App.-El Paso Sept. 30, 2004, pet. granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("indictment is admissible at punishment"). Likewise, judicial confessions and plea bargains are not excluded by Rule 802 because they are admissions by a party and not considered hearsay. Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(2)(A)-(B). See also Barela, 2004 WL 2192604, at *7 (guilty plea is an admission and not hearsay); Johnston v. Am. Med. Int'l, 36 S.W.3d 572, 578 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2000, pet. denied); Postlewait v. State, No. 05-93-00617-CR, 1994 WL 679379, at *3(Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 29, 1994, no writ) (not designated for publication) (evidence of defendant's prior guilty plea admissible during punishment proceeding). Because the documents about which Jones complains are either exempt from the hearsay rules or not hearsay at all, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting these documents. See Riney v. State, 60 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.) (review trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion). Jones's second point of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Jones concedes the exhibits to which he objects contain certifications from the clerks of the proper districts or counties stating the documents are true and correct copies of the originals in their files. The authenticity of the documents is not at issue in this appeal.