 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Vasquez1/21/2003
the Ronnie L. Vasquez in the present case was a different individual than the Ronnie L. Vasquez identified in exhibits 112 and 113. Accordingly, the court enhanced Vasquez' present conviction to that for a third offense, making the crime a Class W misdemeanor.
An authenticated record establishing a prior conviction of a defendant with the same name is prima facie sufficient to establish identity and, in the absence of any denial or contradictory evidence, is sufficient to support a finding by the court that the accused has been convicted prior thereto. State v. Kelly, 212 Neb. 45, 321 N.W.2d 80 (1982). As noted above, exhibits 112 and 113 are authenticated copies of convictions in the Buffalo County Court for a Ronnie L. Vasquez. At the sentencing hearing in the present case, Vasquez did not specifically deny that he was the same person as the individual shown convicted in exhibits 112 and 113; rather, he argued, as he does in his brief on appeal, that the exhibits should not be received because the State did not produce further evidence such as birth dates, driver's license numbers, or other methods to connect Vasquez with the defendant represented in exhibits 112 and 113. However, Vasquez did not produce any evidence to show that the documentation provided did not pertain to him. Exhibits 112 and 113, being authenticated records establishing prior convictions of a defendant with the same name as the defendant in the present case, were thus prima facie sufficient to establish identity. Absent any denials or contradictory evidence, the exhibits are sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Vasquez has been convicted on those previous occasions for DUI. This assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Vasquez has failed to preserve for appellate review the constitutional issues raised in his motion to suppress. As the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support Vasquez' conviction, the district court did not err in denying Vasquez' motion to dismiss. The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Vasquez' motion for a mistrial or in admitting the results of Vasquez' blood alcohol test. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in receiving exhibits 112 and 113 or in using them to enhance Vasquez' DUI conviction to that for a third offense.
Affirmed.
|