JOE PACE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (original)
Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-216-08
JOE PACE, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
IN CAUSE NO. 01-04-00518-CR FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HARRIS COUNTY
Per Curiam. Cochran, J., dissented.
O P I N I O N
Joe Pace was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, and the State alleged two prior convictions for enhancement. At punishment, the State introduced evidence that Pace's prior forgery conviction had been appealed. On appeal in this case, Pace alleged that the State failed to prove that the forgery conviction was final. The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the conviction was final because Pace admitted to being convicted of forgery and to going to prison for that offense. (1) In reaching its holding, the court of appeals relied on our decision in Flowers v. State. (2)
Pace filed a petition for discretionary review contending, in his second ground for review, that the court of appeals erred in relying on Flowers and that the court instead should have relied on Jones v. State. (3) In Jones, we held if the State introduces evidence that a prior conviction has been appealed, it is then incumbent upon the State to offer proof that the conviction has been affirmed. Pace is correct that the court of appeals erred to conclude that the State satisfied its burden in this case. Evidence that Pace was convicted and went to prison is insufficient to establish that the prior forgery conviction was affirmed.
Accordingly, we grant Pace's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand this case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. We also refuse Pace's first ground for review.
DATE DELIVERED: July 2, 2008
DO NOT PUBLISH
1. Pace v. State, No. 01-04-00518-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8143 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 11, 2007) (not designated for publication).
2. 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
3. 711 S.W.2d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
