Michael Earitt White v. State, 458 S.W.3d 188

Michael White was convicted by a jury of driving while license invalid (with prior conviction) after trooper Tim Keele stopped him on November 6, 2012, and the in-car computer (license return) showed multiple suspensions.
License-return entries showed three active suspensions: (1) a Default Suspension beginning Nov. 5, 2012 (perpetual); (2) an “SR Suspension” beginning Oct. 29, 2012 (perpetual); and (3) a suspension tied to an August 28, 2012 conviction (listed as beginning Oct. 29, 2012 and ending Mar. 3, 2013).
The State introduced the August 28 conviction judgment but did not introduce TDPS suspension orders or evidence of mailing dates for any suspension notices in its case-in-chief.
White later introduced a TDPS “Order of Suspension” dated November 8, 2012 (received by him about Nov. 11), which notified suspension from Oct. 29, 2012 through Mar. 3, 2013.
Texas law treats mailed TDPS notice as received on the fifth day after mailing and the suspension as commencing 40 days after receipt (i.e., 45 days after mailing); thus proof of mailing date is necessary to establish the effective suspension period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (White)	Held
Whether evidence established that White’s license was suspended at time of driving (Nov. 6, 2012)	License return and officer testimony showing listed suspensions suffice to prove suspension in effect	State failed to prove TDPS mailed required notice or when mailed; therefore suspension not proven effective on Nov. 6	Reversed — insufficient evidence; no proof mailing date so suspension not shown effective on Nov. 6
Whether an "SR" (automatic) suspension required notice or proof to show it was in effect	SR suspensions are automatic for some offenses and need not be separately shown by notice	Even automatic suspensions require competent evidence they were in effect as of the offense date; the State offered no such proof	Rejected State’s contention; State failed to prove SR suspension in effect on offense date

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standards for sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S.) (constitutional sufficiency standard)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (hypothetically correct jury charge / elements framing)
Podany v. State, 358 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Crim. App.) (State must prove statutory notice of suspension to show suspension in effect)
Smith v. State, 324 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. Crim. App.) (insufficient proof of mailed notice defeats conviction for driving with suspended license)
Sparkman v. State, 997 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (automatic-suspension framework; State must prove prerequisites)
Ex parte Drake, 212 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—Austin) (context for automatic suspension where prerequisites and notice were established)