RODNEY O'KEEFE DAVIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED and Opinion filed November 27, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01188-CR
............................
RODNEY O'KEEFE DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-81588-RK
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Howell, Rowe and Kinkeade
Opinion By Justice Kinkeade
        Rodney O'Keefe Davis appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, the jury assessed punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for life. Because the trial court properly allowed the admission of Davis's certified pen packet into evidence, Davis suffered no violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
Statement of Facts
        On April 27, 1988, Davis approached Mary Flynn as she attempted to get out of her car. While holding a knife on Flynn, Davis grabbed her purse. The jury found Davis guilty of aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment.
        At the punishment phase of the trial, the State sought to introduce Davis's pen packet into evidence to prove a prior felony conviction for enhancement purposes. The pen packet contained a certification document, Judgment against Rodney O'Keefe Davis, "Judgment against Sue Crocker", and several other documents referring to Davis but not pertinent to this discussion. With the exception of the "Judgment against Sue Crocker" all of the other documents pertained to Davis. Davis objected that the inclusion of this extraneous judgment against Crocker made the entire pen packet void for enhancement purposes. The court, however, after excising the Crocker judgment, admitted the pen packet into evidence.
Pen Packet Admissibility
        Davis argues in his first point of error that the trial court erred in allowing the pen packet to be admitted into evidence. Davis contends that the inclusion of the judgment of another person in his pen packet calls into question the trustworthiness of all the material contained in the pen packet. Further, Davis asserts that this lack of trustworthiness defeats the pen packet's self-authentication and its admissibility as an exception to the hearsay rules. Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 803(8). Davis cities no authority for this proposition.
        The trial court may allow into evidence a pen packet from which the State has excised material. Holmes v. State, 681 S.W.2d 812, 813 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no pet.). In Holmes, the defendant raised the same type of objection that Davis raises in the present case. At trial, Holmes objected to the court excising a judgment from the pen packet and correcting the cause number on the certification page. He objected on the grounds that these actions defeated the document's self-authentication status. The court, however, held these inconsistencies to be technical defects, insufficient to render the pen packet inadmissible. Id. The court in Holmes failed to clearly indicate whether the judgment excised belonged to Holmes or to someone else. This lack of clarity, however, makes no difference and provides no distinction for the present case. We encourage the trial judge to examine any pen packets the State attempts to introduce into evidence and to excise irrelevant, inadmissible evidence. This practice prevents juries from viewing extraneous material which might bias their decision. In the present case, the trial court merely allowed the State to remove the "Judgment against Sue Crocker" from the pen packet and then allowed the remainder of the packet into evidence. Sue Crocker's Judgment bore no relationship to the case being tried, consequently, the irrelevant judgment was inadmissible.
        Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 902, not 803(8), controls the admissibility of pen packets. Edlund v. State, 677 S.W.2d 204, 211 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.) (Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 902 replaced Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 3731a). This rule provides that proper certification alone renders a public document admissible into evidence for the truth of the matter stated therein. See Todd v. State, 598 S.W.2d 286, 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Accordingly, Davis misplaces his reliance on Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 803(8) when he asserts that the pen packet fails to meet an exception to the hearsay rule. The certification document included in the pen packet provided sufficient evidence of self-authentication and the removal of irrelevant evidence does not defeat this self-authentication. Accordingly, we overrule Davis's first point of error.
Right of Confrontation
        In his second point of error, Davis argues that admission of the remainder of the pen packet denied him his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses against him. Introduction of a certified pen packet does not constitute a denial of the right of confrontation under the United States Constitution. Richardson v. State, 432 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968). Davis's pen packet contained a certification document, therefore, he suffered no denial of his confrontation rights. Accordingly, we overrule Davis's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          Ed Kinkeade
                                                          Justice
 
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90.
 
881188OF.U05
 
 
File Date[11-27-89]
File Name[881188OF]