Strehl v. State
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1221
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Joseph Leo Strehl, III was convicted by a jury of DWI (third or more) and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment; he appealed.
- At trial police stopped Strehl after a 9-1-1 caller reported seeing an intoxicated driver; officer testimony, field sobriety tests, Strehl’s admission, and arrest video were admitted.
- Strehl filed a written motion to suppress but did not obtain a pretrial hearing or timely present the motion before the jury heard key testimony and saw the video; he sought a ruling only after that evidence was admitted.
- The indictment alleged two prior DWI convictions as jurisdictional priors: one from 1993 (cause M93-011485) and one from 2006 (cause F35365) in Johnson County.
- The State introduced robust proof linking Strehl to the 1993 conviction (plea papers with thumbprint, judgment, expert fingerprint testimony). For the 2006 conviction the State introduced only a certified judgment naming "Joseph Leo Strehl, III" without fingerprint, DOB, photograph, signature, or witness tying the defendant to that record.
- The trial court denied suppression (untimely), the jury found Strehl guilty of felony DWI based on two prior convictions; on appeal the court considered preservation of the suppression claim and sufficiency of proof linking Strehl to the 2006 prior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Strehl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strehl preserved his motion to suppress for appellate review | State: motion to suppress was filed; ruling was ultimately obtained | Strehl: the trial court erred by denying suppression of evidence from the traffic stop | Court: not preserved — motion was untimely because evidence was admitted before obtaining a ruling; claim forfeited |
| Whether the State proved defendant was the same person convicted in the 2006 prior (cause F35365) | State: same distinctive full name, same county, and the 2006 judgment in the record were sufficient circumstantial proof | Strehl: certified judgment alone is legally insufficient to link him to the prior without fingerprint, DOB, photo, signature, or testimonial link | Court: evidence legally insufficient to link Strehl to the 2006 prior; State failed its burden |
| Whether the conviction should be reformed to a lesser-included offense given insufficient proof of the second prior | State: conviction stands as felony based on alleged two priors; alternatively court may decline reformation | Strehl: if second prior fails, conviction cannot remain felony; at most misdemeanor DWI | Court: applied Thornton test and reformed judgment to Class A misdemeanor DWI (one proven prior), affirmed guilt as modified, reversed punishment, remanded for new punishment hearing |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of the underlying DWI (guilt) aside from priors | State: officer testimony, arrest video, admission, and failed sobriety tests support DWI guilt | Strehl: did not contest sufficiency of underlying DWI on appeal | Court: evidence sufficient to support DWI conviction (misdemeanor) |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App.) (timely and specific objection required to preserve suppression complaints)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App.) (no fixed mode of proof for linking priors; circumstantial proof may suffice)
- Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Crim. App.) (certified judgment alone not normally sufficient to prove prior; State must show by independent evidence the defendant is the person convicted)
- Human v. State, 749 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. App.) (case-by-case sufficiency analysis for linking defendant to prior convictions)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury in sufficiency review under Jackson)
- Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App.) (framework for reforming judgment to lesser-included offense when enhancement elements fail)
- Canida v. State, 434 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedures and obligations when reforming judgment and remanding for punishment)