Thompson, Clyde Wayne v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 155th District Court of Waller County

Annotate this Case
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005

Affirmedand Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00404-CR

____________

CLYDE WAYNE THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03-04-11,454

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


Appellant, Clyde Wayne Thompson, pled no contest to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, a state jail felony. At his plea hearing, appellant also pled Atrue@ to the six enhancements included in the notice of enhancement, elevating the offense to a second degree felony. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancements true, the trial court sentenced appellant to 10 years in the Texas Department of Corrections, Institutional Division.

In his first through third points of error, appellant complains the trial court erred in admitting three of his prior convictions that were included in the notice of enhancement because they were too remote for impeachment under Rule 609 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Tex. R. Evid. 609. Rule 609 provides for the admission of a witness= prior conviction for purposes of impeachment. Id. Because appellant=s prior convictions were admitted for enhancement purposes, not for impeachment, this complaint is without merit. Moreover, appellant has waived this issue by failing to object to the use of the enhancements on the ground of remoteness. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Appellant=s first through third points of error are overruled.

In his fourth through ninth points of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting all six of his prior convictions included in the notice of enhancement because the State failed to prove that any of the alleged prior convictions were final before the primary offense was committed. By pleading Atrue@ to the enhancements, however, appellant relieved the State of its burden to prove the prior convictions were final and cannot complain on appeal that the evidence is not sufficient to support them. Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Appellant=s fourth through ninth points of error are overruled.


In his tenth through fifteenth points of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the six prior convictions included in the notice of enhancement because the State failed to prove he was the person previously convicted. Again, because appellant pleaded true to the enhancements, the State has been relieved of the burden of proving appellant=s identity as the person convicted of the offenses charged in the notice of enhancement. Chandler v. State, 21 S.W.3d 922, 923 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Appellant=s tenth through fifteenth points of error are overruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ J. Harvey Hudson

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).