Gustavo Mendoza Gallardo v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-09-0064-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JANUARY 12, 2010
______________________________
GUSTAVO MENDOZA GALLARDO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. A17752-0808; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Gustavo Mendoza Gallardo (appellant) appeals his felony conviction for driving while
intoxicated (DWI). His sole issue involves the sufficiency of the evidence establishing guilt.
That is, he contends that the State failed to prove one of the prior DWI convictions it
alleged for purposes of enhancement. It so failed to prove the conviction, according to
appellant, because the copy of the judgment manifesting the conviction was unsigned.
This argument was expressly considered and rejected in Mulder v. State, 707 S.W.2d 908
(Tex. Crim. App. 1986). There, the court held that the validity of a conviction was not
affected by the failure of the trial judge to sign the judgment. Id. Thus, the unsigned
judgment was sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a prior conviction. Id.; accord,
Flores v. State, 139 S.W.3d 61, 65 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2004, pet. ref’d) (considering
and rejecting the same argument).
Accordingly, we overrule the issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2