WILLIE JAMES BROWN, JR., FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-88-01036-CR
WILLIE JAMES BROWN, JR.,                         FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
        APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
        APPELLEE. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES McCLUNG, THOMAS AND OVARD
OPINION PER CURIAM
JUNE 23, 1989
        Willie James Brown, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of burglary of a motor vehicle and punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, was assessed by the court at thirty years' confinement. In his sole point of error, Brown contends that the penitentiary packet offered as proof of the enhancement paragraphs was inadmissible because it was not duly authenticated as required by law. We affirm.
        Brown contends that the trial court erred in admitting and considering the penitentiary packet because the packet did not contain a certificate of the convicting court's clerk that the copies of the judgment sent to the Department of Corrections were correct copies of the originals on file in the clerk's office. Thus, he argues that the documents were not admissible as self-proving documents. Citing Dingler v. State, 723 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1987, pet. dism'd).
        We note, however, that Brown's objections at trial were that: 1) the attestation of the Department of Corrections custodian was defective because "it purports to be signed by James B. Patton of the County Court of Walker County when in fact on its face it shows it was signed by Julia Rodriguez, Deputy;" 2) the fingerprint card for one of the prior convictions was missing; 3) the judgment in one prior conviction showed that it was heard by a magistrate but did not demonstrate that the defendant consented to the magistrate's hearing; and 4) the exhibit failed to demonstrate that the prior convictions were "upon an indictment then legally pending." Brown did not object to the absence of attestation by the convicting court's clerk.         Because Brown did not complain at trial on the ground he urges on appeal, he presents nothing for review. See Knox v. State, 744 S.W.2d 53, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 2834 (1988); Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 190 (1988). We overrule Brown's sole point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
                                                          PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90.
 
88-01036.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[881036]