Rashaad H. Al-Muhammad a/k/a Robert Lee Helm v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-290-CR

RASHAAD H. AL-MUHAMMAD

A/K/A ROBERT LEE HELM,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 13,327

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Appellant Rashaad H. Al-Muhammad of the offense of possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 46.10(a)(2) (Vernon 1994). A prior felony conviction for the offense of murder enhanced Al-Muhammad's punishment. The jury sentenced him to fifteen years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Al-Muhammad raises a single point of error that the State failed to offer evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prior conviction alleged for enhancement purposes was a final conviction.

To prove Al-Muhammad's prior conviction, the State introduced a duly authenticated pen packet into evidence. See Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 902(1), (4). The TDCJ-ID record clerk's attestation provided in pertinent part:

That in my legal Custody as [Record Clerk of TDCJ-ID] are the original files and records of persons heretofore committed to said institution: that the (X) photograph (X) fingerprints and (X) commitments, including judgment and sentence, of HELM, ROBERT LEE TDCJ# 452859 F8671404KL a person heretofore committed to said penal institution and who served a term of imprisonment therein: that I have compared the attached copies with their respective originals now on file in my office and each thereof contains, and is a full, true, and correct transcript and copy from its said original.

The judgment and sentence // in the packet reflect that Al-Muhammad was convicted // of murder in the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, in cause number F86-71404-KL, on May 13, 1987. // The judgment shows that Al-Muhammad gave notice of appeal from this conviction on June 9, 1987. A deputy clerk for Bill Long, the Dallas County District Clerk, certified the copy of the judgment contained in the exhibit to be true and correct.

The pen packet also contained a mandate dated June 15, 1988 from the Dallas Court of Appeals directed to the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County which affirmed the conviction of Robert Lee Helm in Appellate Cause No. 5-87-639-CR. The mandate does not reflect the trial court's cause number. The mandate bears the file stamp of Bill Long which was signed by a deputy clerk when the mandate was filed on June 16. The final two pages of the packet are copies of Appellant's TDCJ fingerprint cards together with other identification information.

The State bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that prior convictions alleged for enhancement purposes became final before the accused committed the primary offense. Jones v. State, 711 S.W.2d 634, 635 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Once the State makes this showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise. Id. When the State's evidence reflects that an appeal has been taken, the State has the burden to establish the disposition of the appeal. Jones, 711 S.W.2d at 636.

In deciding whether the State has met its burden in proving up the prior conviction, we determine, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, whether any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Al-Muhammad had been previously and finally convicted of the alleged offense before the commission of the primary offense. Littles v. State, 726 S.W.2d 26, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on reh'g); see Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 128-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). //

The certificate of the TDCJ record clerk identifies Al-Muhammad by his former name, his TDCJ identification number, and the cause number under which he was committed to prison. The "[r]eference in the attestation to `commitments' is a generic one . . . to identify official records of the [TDCJ] by which it is authorized and directed to confine the convict named therein." Todd v. State, 598 S.W.2d 286, 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Perkins v. State, 628 S.W.2d 112, 115 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1981, no pet.).

From a reading of the entire exhibit, we conclude that the attestation refers to each document contained in the pen packet. See Pierce v. State, 733 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1987, no pet.). The pen packet submitted to the jury makes reference to only one prior conviction. It contained the judgment and sentence from Cause No. F86-71404-KL, a second modified judgment and sentence under the same cause number reflecting that notice of appeal was given, the mandate of the Dallas Court of Appeals, and Al-Muhammad's fingerprint cards. When the pen packet is analyzed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's implicit finding that the mandate referred to the appeal of the conviction in cause number F86-71404-KL and the jury's explicit finding that the enhancement allegation was true. Thus, we overrule the point of error.

Having overruled Al-Muhammad's sole point of error, we affirm the judgment.

REX D. DAVIS

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis

Justice Cummings and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 22, 1997

Do not publish