Christopher Lee Cole v. State, 05-14-01399-CR

On March 12, 2013, officers stopped a silver Kia for an inoperative rear license-plate light; Christopher Lee Cole was a passenger.
Detective Roach observed Cole attempting to light what Roach believed was a marijuana cigarette; Cole handed it over and was arrested for possession of marijuana.
A search incident to arrest produced a pill bottle containing methamphetamine and cocaine; Cole was indicted for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and methamphetamine.
Dash-cam video of the traffic stop was downloaded but later could not be produced at trial; officers testified it was lost for unknown reasons.
At punishment, the State introduced a certified August 17, 2009 Dallas County judgment (delivery of cocaine) with associated fingerprints and documents; Cole pleaded not true to the enhancement but the jury found the prior true and assessed enhanced sentences.
The court of appeals sua sponte reformed the judgments to reflect Cole’s plea to the enhancement was “not true” and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether an article 38.23 jury instruction was required because the traffic stop may have been unlawful	Loss of dash-cam video and lack of corroboration raised an affirmative factual dispute about whether the license-plate light was defective, so 38.23 instruction was required	Officers consistently testified the plate light was not working; disappearance of video is not affirmative evidence that the stop was invalid	Court held no 38.23 instruction required; no affirmative evidence created a fact issue about the stop's legality
Whether evidence was sufficient to link Cole to the 2009 prior conviction used for enhancement	Only name on the certified judgment linked Cole to the prior; fingerprint comparison testimony was incomplete, so link insufficient	Totality of evidence (name, signatures, DOB, racial designation, fingerprint materials, mother’s testimony) permitted the jury to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt	Court held evidence sufficient to link Cole to the 2009 conviction for enhancement purposes

Robinson v. State, 377 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (article 38.23 instruction requirements when jury should be instructed to disregard illegally obtained evidence)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requirements to obtain an article 38.23 jury instruction)
Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (two elements to prove a prior conviction and identity link)
Human v. State, 749 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (illustration of assembling evidentiary "puzzle pieces" to prove identity for prior convictions)
Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (cross-examination insinuations do not create affirmative evidence for a 38.23 instruction)
Shpikula v. State, 68 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (disbelief of officers’ testimony alone does not automatically require a 38.23 instruction)
Benton v. State, 336 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (signatures and other identifiers may link a defendant to a prior conviction)
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate court's duty to reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)