Larry Harold Forward v. State, 406 S.W.3d 601

Forward was convicted of failure to appear and sentenced to 35 years after enhancement findings.
State introduced certified judgments of Forward's prior felonies (assault on a public servant, retaliation, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) to prove enhancement.
Fingerprints were linked to the judgments by fingerprint expert Shackelford using the ACE-V method, but no second verifier was used in this case.
Trial court admitted all twenty-three priors despite the lack of verification, relying on Shackelford’s testimony that there was a match.
Forward challenged the link between him and the judgments and later asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for hearsay and extraneous-offense testimony during trial.
Evidence on a guilt/innocence phase included hearsay via a bail bondsman and extraneous-offense testimony; the defense asserted ineffective assistance and requested limiting instructions and proper charge handling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enhancement evidence was legally sufficient	Forward argues insufficient link to prior judgments	State argues Shackelford’s testimony and judgments suffice to prove link	Sufficient evidence under Jackson v. Virginia; judgments properly linked via expert testimony and supporting identifiers
Whether certified judgments were admissible without verified linkage	Forward contends lack of verification invalidates link	State shows linkage through Shackelford’s ACE-V comparison and supporting IDs	Admissible; lack of verification did not render testimony unreliable; trial court did not abuse discretion
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to hearsay about whereabouts	Counsel should have objected to hearsay from bondsman	Record silence on strategy; objections would be strategic not ineffective	No Strickland failings shown; record inadequate to demonstrate ineffectiveness
Ineffective assistance regarding extraneous offenses and charge handling	Counsel failed to object to extraneous-offense testimony and failed to seek limiting instructions	Motion in limine filed; voir dire allowed full punishment range; insufficient showing of deficiency	No reversible error; defense not shown to be ineffective under Strickland

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; zone of reasonable disagreement)
Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (certified judgments admissible if link shown by independent evidence)
Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (prior judgments admissible when linked to defendant; weight to be given to link evidence)
Littles v. State, 726 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (photographic and birth-date evidence supports identity with judgments)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (nonexclusive factors for reliability of scientific method; verification not universally required)
United States v. Pena, 586 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2009) (ACE-V verification not always required for admissibility)
United States v. Baines, 573 F.3d 979 (10th Cir. 2009) (admissibility of fingerprint testimony without full Daubert factors clarified)
United States v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (fingerprint analysis admissibility considerations)
United States v. Scott, 403 F. App’x 392 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizes ACE-V method in admissibility discussions)