Sullens v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. State

    No. 02-17-00382-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 12, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    The trial court had sufficient evidence to link State's Exhibits 17 and 18 to Johnson without the necessity of matching his fingerprints to the judgments in those exhibits based on his name and unique state identification number, which, along with the photographs from his earliest convictions and the variations of his name contained in all of his convictions, tied all of his unchallenged convictions to him. See Warren, 353 S.W.3d at 490, 494-95; see also Lester v. State, No. 02-16-00288-CR, 2018 WL 3763897, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 9, 2018, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("[O]ur precedent is replete with cases holding that matching CID numbers strongly support linking defendants with associated prior convictions."); Sullens v. State, No. 02-13-00364-CR, 2015 WL 3523143, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 4, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to link appellant to the four complained-of judgments, which all contained his full name and the same date of birth and county identification number, when the same name, date of birth, and identification number appeared in the convictions that he acknowledged); Goode v. State, No. 02-10-00465-CR, 2011 WL 4502333, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 29, 2011, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (stating that the factfinder could have found the evidence sufficient to link appellant to the two prior judgments submitted by the State "[g]iven that appellant's unique, nonrecycled CID appeared in relation to two Tarrant County convictions concerning a defendant with appellant's full name and birth date"); Ortiz v. State, No. 02-07-00397-CR, 2008 WL 4602243, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 16, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that the evidence was suffici

  2. Lester v. State

    NO. 02-16-00288-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 9, 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Holding officer's observation of bags of methamphetamine falling from Lester's pocket was sufficient to support an inference that Lester knew he possessed the bags

    Second, our precedent is replete with cases holding that matching CID numbers strongly support linking defendants with associated prior convictions. See Davis v. State, No. 02-16-00102-CR, 2017 WL 370953, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ramirez v. State, No. 02-13-00540-CR, 2015 WL 4652771, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that defendant's identity in prior convictions was shown through evidence of a common CID number in other documents with matching fingerprints); Sullens v. State, No. 02-13-00364-CR, 2015 WL 3523143, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 4, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding where name, date of birth, and CID number appear in non-challenged exhibits of prior convictions, their repetition in challenged exhibits of prior convictions satisfies the State's duty to link a defendant to a challenged prior conviction); Jones v. State, No. 02-11-00060-CR, 2012 WL 3735890, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 30, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's identity in challenged exhibit of prior conviction where it and unchallenged exhibit shared identical CID number and date of birth); Norris v. State, No. 02-10-00468-CR, 2012 WL 2135594, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 14, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that evidence of identical CID number, date of birth, and full name was sufficient to link defendant to prior convictions). Third, another admitted pen packet, State's Exhibit No. 10, unchallenged b

  3. Younger v. State

    NO. 02-16-00408-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 9, 2017)

    And on many occasions, Texas courts have held that a trial court's prompt instruction to disregard a single, unsolicited, nonresponsive reference to a defendant's extraneous bad act will cure any harm. See, e.g., Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that two references to extraneous bad acts committed by the defendant were harmless in light of a trial court's instruction to disregard), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1108 (1999); Sullens v. State, No. 02-13-00364-CR, 2015 WL 3523143, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 4, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that even if a witness's reference to an extraneous bad act violated a motion in limine, "an instruction to disregard the comment would have been sufficient to cure the harm"); Hill v. State, No. 02-06-00357-CR, 2007 WL 2792863, at *6 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Sept. 27, 2007, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that a police officer's nonresponsive reference to the defendant's "previous burglaries," although violating a motion in limine, was harmless in light of an immediate instruction to disregard). These decisions defeat Younger's assertion that the "jury instruction was incapable of curing the error because human nature makes it impossible for someone to disregard information that they know."