I thought this topic had been addressed before, but I could not find it.....Does a deferred adj. count as a "prior conviction" for enhancement of a subsequent DWLI case? The statute mentions probation, but not deferred. Trans. Code 521.457

Hate to leave you twisting in the wind out here! Maybe a bump to this thread will invite someone who knows the answer for sure, but I couldn't find anything definitive just now when I looked around.

But I think the answer is that deferred does not count.

Davis v. State, 968 S.W.2d 368, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) says that generally deferred can't be a final conviction and isn't the same as a probated sentence. And 521.347, a few paragraphs up, uses this language to clarify that "deferred" is NOT a final conviction for the purposes of that section. I know some statutes do the opposite and say "conviction or deferred," but since that doesn't happen here, my vote, FWIW, is it doesn't count as a conviction.

I think Jon is right. Since there are several statutes that expressly incorporate deferred into an enhancement scheme, and this one does not, I think it falls within the presumption that the Legislature uses the language it chooses for a purpose and similarly excludes language for a purpose.

thanks fellows! that was my interpretation as well, but I thought maybe I had missed something.
As usual, the DWLI statutory search is a maze of confusion.....reminds me of trying to find anything in the U.S. tax code back in law school.