I have a prior felony judgment that I want to use in a punishment hearing with a PSI. I have the PEN packet with the fingerprints, so I know it is the defendant. However defense counsel is objecting to admission of the judgment based on CCP Art. 42.01 sec. 1 para. 23. My judgment is from 1984. It looks like the requirement for a thumbprint did not come into existence until 1979 under CCP Art. 38.33. I found a case that says a judgment w/o a thumbprint is not void but viodable; and is subject to reformation on direct appeal but not subject to collateral attack. Any thoughts that might help clear this up? Thank you

A great many, perhaps even a majority of, judgments are signed or entered without fully complying with the requirements of that statute. They misstate and omit things. Not much attention seems to be paid to the "rolled legibly" language. As you note, strict compliance (despite the mandatory wording of the statute) has no effect on the validity of the adjudication of guilt (the fact at issue). The judgment is merely the memorial of the event. It remains relevant so long as it demonstrates that fact and is satisfactorily connected with the defendant. See also TRE 901(7), (10), 1005.

Not having a fingerprint doesn't matter. Many judgments have no legible prints or no prints at all. Remember, the only purpose for prints is to link that document to a particular defendant. But prints are merely one of an infinite number of ways you can make that link. You can do so through live witnesses like prior victims, cops, or probation officers who can testify that the Defendant is the same person who committed the prior. You can also use identifiers on prior judgments or indictments such as birthday, SSN, DL number, etc. and match those to your defendant. I've even proven up judgments by using jail calls where the Defendant discussed his prior DWI convictions in a particular county that just so happened to be the same county from which I had judgments with his name on them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RCC,