ClarkProsecutor.org

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

John Manuel Quintanilla Jr.
Date of Birth: 12/09/1976
DR#: 999491
Date Received: 12/08/2004
Education: 8 years
Occupation: laborer
Date of Offense: 11/24/2002
County of Offense: Victoria
Native County: Calhoun
Race: Black
Gender: Male
Hair Color: Black
Eye Color: Brown
Height: 5' 08"
Weight: 153

Prior Prison Record: TDCJ #701105 on a 10 year sentence from Victoria County for 2 counts of Burglary Habitation and Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity.

Summary of Incident: On 11/24/2002 in Victoria, Texas, Quintanilla and two male co-defendants entered an action amusement center through a partially opened back door, demanded cash from an employee and advised all other patrons to get down on the floor. An adult white male attempted to disarm Quintanilla and was fatally shot three times. A second victim, and adult white female, was also shot, but the injury was not fatal.

Co-Defendants: Jeffrey Bibb and Rodney Rodriguez.

Texas Attorney General

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Media Advisory: John Manuel Quintanilla scheduled for execution

VICTORIA – Pursuant to a court order by the 377th Judicial District Court in Victoria County, John Manuel Quintanilla is scheduled for execution after 6 p.m. on July 16, 2013. In 2004, a Victoria County jury found Quintanilla guilty of murdering Victor Billings in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the crime were not summarized by any court reviewing the case, which focused on the specific facts surrounding Quintanilla’s confessions. Quintanilla and another man walked into a game parlor in Victoria, Texas, in the evening hours of November 24, 2002. Victor Billings, a retired law enforcement officer, was playing games inside, as was his wife of forty years, Linda. Quintanilla and his partner wore pantyhose masks and carried long rifles. One robber went into the parlor office while Quintanilla ordered the clerk, standing next to Mrs. Billings, to give him the money in her apron. She complied. Quintanilla later stated he stole some two thousand dollars from the game parlor that day. Quintanilla was pointing his rifle at the employee and Mrs. Billings. Victor Billings walked up to his wife and Quintanilla shot him twice. Billings grabbed the muzzle of the gun and Quintanilla shot him a third time, knocking him flat to the ground. Billings died of these gunshot wounds to the torso. Two patrons ran out the front door and Quintanilla shot at them from the rear of the facility. The shots were head high and struck the front door area.

At punishment, the State additionally presented testimony of Dr. Richard Coons, a forensic psychiatrist, who opined on the basis of a hypothetical question greatly resembling the facts of this case that such an inmate would probably be a future danger, and would be a greater risk if sentenced to life than if he were sent to death row. After the State rested its punishment case, the court convened a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Trial counsel for Quintanilla indicated they would rest, in obedience to their client’s instructions. The trial court questioned Quintanilla regarding his awareness and understanding of his right to present evidence on punishment and the possible benefit of such evidence. Quintanilla confirmed that it was his considered wish not to present evidence in mitigation or regarding future dangerousness. Before the jury, defense counsel rested.

On the following day, before argument began and outside the jury’s presence, the court again addressed Quintanilla and emphasized the possible benefits of presenting evidence in mitigation. The court additionally pointed out that trial counsel had the expertise and experience to make determinations regarding useful evidence, and that without any punishment evidence from the defense, the jury’s decision would be based solely on the State’s presentation. Quintanilla repeatedly indicated that he had fully discussed this issue with his attorneys and that his decision was made freely, knowingly and voluntarily. Defense counsel indicated that they disagreed with Quintanilla’s decision but did not believe him to be incompetent in any way, and the court concurred. Counsel added that this had been an “ongoing situation” for the two years he had represented the defendant, and that both attorneys had counseled Quintanilla at great length for those two years without success in changing his position.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2003, a Victoria County grand jury indicted Quintanilla for murdering Victor Billings while committing or attempting to commit robbery on or about Nov. 24, 2002.

In 2004, a Victoria County jury found Quintanilla guilty of murdering Victor Billings. The jury recommended capital punishment, and on Dec. 14, 2004, the court sentenced Quintanilla to death by lethal injection.

On June 27, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Quintanilla’s conviction and sentence.

Quintanilla did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 22, 2006, Quintanilla sought a state writ of habeas corpus with the state trial court.

In 2007, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

On June 4, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of habeas relief.

On May 30, 2009, Quintanilla filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

On Jan. 25, 2011, the federal district court denied Quintanilla’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On Oct. 17, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied COA.

On Jan. 6, 2012, Quintanilla filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On March 19, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Quintanilla’s petition for writ of certiorari.

On July 9, 2013, Quintanilla filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.

On July 11, 2013, the U.S. district court transferred petition to the U.S.Court of Appeals.

On July 11, 2013, Quintanilla filed a motion for stay of execution.

On July 13, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and stay.

On July 15, 2013, Quantanilla filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On July 16, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Quantanilla's petition for writ of certiorari and a motion for stay of execution.

PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY

Under Texas law, the rules of evidence prevent certain prior criminal acts from being presented to a jury during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. However, once a defendant is found guilty, jurors are presented information about the defendant’s prior criminal conduct during the second phase of the trial – which is when they determine the defendant’s punishment. At punishment, the State presented testimony that Quintanilla committed another five armed robberies or burglaries, and attempted to commit a sixth, beginning in September 2002 and continuing through January 2003. Further, Quintanilla stabbed and sliced guards with improvised weapons and razor blades while trying to escape from the county jail in January 2003. Penitentiary packets revealed that Quintanilla pled guilty to second-degree felony burglary of a habitation in 1995 and received a 10-year sentence. Quintanilla also pled no contest to five other burglaries in 1995.

Texas man executed for killing during 2002 holdup

By Michael Graczyk - Associated Press

Chron.com

July 16, 2013

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A Texas man convicted of fatally shooting a retired sheriff's deputy during the robbery of an amusement center more than a decade ago was put to death Tuesday. John Manuel Quintanilla received lethal injection for gunning down 60-year-old Victor Billings at a game room in Victoria, about 125 miles southwest of Houston. The 2002 slaying came just a few months after Quintanilla had been released from prison after serving a sentence for several burglary convictions.

Asked to make a final statement before his execution, Quintanilla told his wife he loved her. "Thank you for all the years of happiness," he said. He never acknowledged his victim's friends or relatives, including two daughters, who watched through a window. As the lethal drug began taking effect, he snored about a half dozen times, then stopped breathing. At 7:32 p.m. CDT — 15 minutes after being given the drug — he was pronounced dead. Quintanilla's wife, a German national who married him by proxy while he was in prison, watched through an adjacent window and sobbed.

Quintanilla, 36, became the ninth Texas inmate to receive lethal injection this year and the 501st since the state resumed carrying out capital punishment in 1982. His was the first of two executions set for this week; the other is planned for Thursday. Quintanilla's punishment was carried out after the U.S. Supreme Court refused two last-day appeals. His lawyers contended his confession was coerced by authorities threatening to also charge one of his sisters and that the statement improperly was allowed into evidence at his trial in 2004. The lawyers obtained affidavits from two jurors who said the confession was a key to their decision to convict him. "It is clear that Quintanilla would not have been convicted of capital murder if his confession had not been admitted — a fact confirmed by two of his jurors," appeals lawyer David Dow told the high court. The appeal also argued Quintanilla had deficient legal help during his trial and in earlier stages of his appeals, and that his case would give justices the opportunity to define filing rules in light of recent death penalty rulings from the court.

The Texas attorney general's office said the appeal was without merit and improperly filed, and that the juror affidavits also were improper. "There wasn't any coercion whatsoever," Dexter Eaves, the former Victoria County district attorney who was lead prosecutor at the trial, recalled last week. He also said that while the robbers, who fled with about $2,000, were masked, witnesses were able to "describe very clearly who the triggerman was." Court records show Billings, a retired chief deputy from nearby Edna in adjacent Jackson County, was at the game center with his wife on the Sunday before Thanksgiving in 2002 when the gunmen came in through a back door. Billings approached one of them and grabbed the barrel of the gunman's rifle "so no one else was going to be hurt and paid for it dearly," Eaves said. He said Billings was shot three times, the last one fired while he was on his knees. "A very cold killing," Eaves said.

During questioning by detectives for an unrelated robbery some two months later, Quintanilla made references to the still unsolved Billings case, then led authorities to a canal where divers recovered items used in the holdup. "They had the mask, the guns and his statements saying who did what," Jim Beeler, Quintanilla's lead trial lawyer, said. "He told them everything." Beeler said the trial judge overruled his objections and ruled the statements proper and admissible into evidence. He also said Quintanilla signed affidavits ordering that his defense team present no mitigating evidence during the punishment phase of his trial, where jurors deciding his sentence could have considered he had virtually no parental supervision while growing up. "You want to argue your case, completely and totally," Beeler said. "In that situation, we're not being allowed to present our case, based on our client. "It's extremely frustrating."

Prosecutors bolstered their case for Quintanilla's future dangerousness by presenting evidence he attacked a jailer with a homemade weapon while awaiting trial. "He did not do himself any favors," Eaves said. Quintanilla's accomplice, Jeffrey Bibb, 33, is serving 60 years for murder and 50 years for aggravated robbery.

Texas man executed for killing during holdup

By Cody Stark - ItemOnline.com

July 16, 2013

HUNTSVILLE — A South Texas man was put to death Tuesday night for the slaying of a retired sheriff’s deputy during a robbery more than 10 years ago. John Manuel Quintanilla Jr., 36, was executed by lethal injection for the 2002 murder of 60-year-old Victor Billings at an amusement center in Victoria. Earlier Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court refused two appeals to halt the execution.

Quintanilla did not have much to say when asked if he wanted to make a final statement Tuesday. He just wanted his wife to know he loved her. “I would like to tell my wife I love her and thank her for all the years of happiness,” Quintanilla said of his wife, a German national he married by proxy while he was on death row. Quintanilla then told the warden to proceed. He began to snore as the drug took effect and lost consciousness. Quintanilla was pronounced dead at 7:32 p.m., 15 minutes after the lethal dose began. He is the ninth inmate to be executed in Texas this year.

According to court documents, Quintanilla had recently been released from prison after serving time for several burglary convictions when he and another gunman entered a game room through the back door on Nov. 24, 2002 and demanded money. Billings, a retired chief deputy with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department, was with his wife at the establishment and grabbed the barrel of Quintanilla’s rifle and tried to stop the robbery. Billings was fatally shot three times. Two months later, Quintanilla was being questioned by authorities for an unrelated robbery when he made reference to the Billings murder and later led detectives to a canal where divers discovered items used in the robbery.

In his appeals, Quintanilla’s lawyers contended his confession was coerced by authorities threatening to also charge one of his sisters and that the statement improperly was allowed into evidence at his trial in 2004. They obtained affidavits from two jurors who said the confession was a key to their decision to convict him. “It is clear that Quintanilla would not have been convicted of capital murder if his confession had not been admitted — a fact confirmed by two of his jurors,” appeals lawyer David Dow told the high court. The appeal also argued Quintanilla had deficient legal help during his trial and in earlier stages of his appeals, and that his case would give justices the opportunity to define filing rules in light of recent death penalty rulings from the court. The Texas attorney general’s office said the appeal was without merit and improperly filed, and that the juror affidavits also were improper.

Quintanilla’s accomplice, Jeffrey Bibb, 33, is serving 60 years for murder and 50 years for aggravated robbery.

Texas executes man for fatal shooting of retired deputy in 2002 robbery

DallasNews.com

July 16, 2013

HUNTSVILLE — A Texas man convicted of fatally shooting a retired sheriff's deputy during the robbery of an amusement center more than a decade ago was put to death Tuesday evening. John Manuel Quintanilla died by lethal injection for gunning down 60-year-old Victor Billings at a game room in Victoria, about 125 miles southwest of Houston. The 2002 slaying came just a few months after Quintanilla had been released from prison after serving a sentence for several burglary convictions.

Asked to make a final statement before his execution, Quintanilla told his wife he loved her. "Thank you for all the years of happiness," he said. He never acknowledged his victim's friends or relatives, including two daughters, who watched through a window. As the lethal drug began taking effect, he snored about a half dozen times, then stopped breathing. Fifteen minutes after being given the drug, at 7:32 p.m. CDT, he was pronounced dead. Quintanilla's wife, a German national who married him by proxy while he was in prison, watched through an adjacent window and sobbed.

Quintanilla, 36, became the ninth Texas inmate to receive lethal injection this year and the 501st since the state resumed carrying out capital punishment in 1982. His was the first of two executions this week. The punishment was carried out after the U.S. Supreme Court refused two last-day appeals. Quintanilla's lawyers contended his confession was coerced by authorities threatening to also charge one of his sisters and that the statement improperly was allowed into evidence at his trial in 2004. They obtained affidavits from two jurors who said the confession was a key to their decision to convict him. "It is clear that Quintanilla would not have been convicted of capital murder if his confession had not been admitted — a fact confirmed by two of his jurors," appeals lawyer David Dow told the high court.

The appeal also argued Quintanilla had deficient legal help during his trial and in earlier stages of his appeals, and that his case would give justices the opportunity to define filing rules in light of recent death penalty rulings from the court. The Texas attorney general's office said the appeal was without merit and improperly filed, and that the juror affidavits also were improper. "There wasn't any coercion whatsoever," Dexter Eaves, the former Victoria County district attorney who was lead prosecutor at the trial, recalled last week. He also said that while the robbers, who fled with about $2,000, were masked, witnesses were able to "describe very clearly who the triggerman was."

Court records show Billings, a retired chief deputy from nearby Edna in adjacent Jackson County, was at the game center with his wife on the Sunday before Thanksgiving in 2002 when the gunmen came in through a back door. Billings approached one of them and grabbed the barrel of the gunman's rifle "so no one else was going to be hurt and paid for it dearly," Eaves said. He said Billings was shot three times, the last one fired while he was on his knees. "A very cold killing," Eaves said.

During questioning by detectives for an unrelated robbery some two months later, Quintanilla made references to the still unsolved Billings case, then led authorities to a canal where divers recovered items used in the holdup. "They had the mask, the guns and his statements saying who did what," Jim Beeler, Quintanilla's lead trial lawyer, said. "He told them everything." Beeler said the trial judge overruled his objections and ruled the statements proper and admissible into evidence. He also said Quintanilla signed affidavits ordering his defense team present no mitigating evidence during the punishment phase of his trial, where jurors deciding his sentence could have considered he had virtually no parental supervision while growing up. "You want to argue your case, completely and totally," Beeler said. "In that situation, we're not being allowed to present our case, based on our client. "It's extremely frustrating."

Prosecutors bolstered their case for Quintanilla's future dangerousness by presenting evidence he attacked a jailer with a homemade weapon while awaiting trial. "He did not do himself any favors," Eaves said. Quintanilla's accomplice, Jeffrey Bibb, 33, is serving 60 years for murder and 50 years for aggravated robbery.

John Manuel Quintanilla, Jr.

ProDeathPenalty.com

On November 24, 2002, in Victoria, 27-year-old John Manuel Quintanilla, Jr. and an accomplice entered an action amusement center through a partially opened back door, demanded cash from an employee and advised all other patrons to get down on the floor. Victor Billings, a former Jackson County, Texas sheriff's deputy, was with his wife at the center. He attempted to disarm Quintanilla in an effort to protect his wife and was fatally shot three times when he grabbed the barrel of the 9 mm carbine rifle. A 56-year-old woman was also shot in the foot.

Right after shooting Billings, Quintanilla noticed two other customers trying to leave through the front door. He aimed and fired at the doorway, head high. The robbery amount was $2000. Victoria police officers testified that when they received the report of shooting at the game room, they didn't know whether or not the shooters were still inside. Senior Patrol Officer Eddie Stevens was dispatched to the call shortly before 7 p.m. It took him 2 minutes to get across town. He was the 1st person on the scene, Stevens said. One of the customers who had run out of the business during the shooting came up to him, Stevens said. "He advised me he did not see anybody else run out," Stevens said. "We did not know if we still had an active shooter inside."

When Sgt. Ralph Buentello arrived a couple of minutes later, the scene was still chaotic, Buentello said. "The immediate situation was extremely unstable as we tried to determine if we still had people inside." Knowing that the department's Special Response Team would take about 40 minutes to mobilize and be at the business, Buentello decided to send three officers in through the front door. Standing behind a 4-foot-tall ballistic shield, the officers made their way in, thus allowing the dead man's wife, Linda Billings, and another woman to run out.

Bradley Hill, Victoria Fire Department emergency medical technician, testified that he and his partner had waited at a distance from the game room until police had assured its safety. He testified that Billings was lying face down in the floor and showed no respiration or pulse.

Quintanilla was linked to a series of other armed robberies in the area in the same time span. Quintanilla had a substantial criminal record. While in jail awaiting trial on this charge, he made two “shanks” (knives) and attacked a guard in an escape attempt. Quintanilla confessed to the murder of Billings, but the defense tried to plant doubt that he was really the robber, suggesting that he was taking the blame for the husband of a relative. At the penalty phase, Quintanilla refused to permit his lawyers to present any evidence. Following testimony in the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury found a probability that Quintanilla would commit future acts of criminal violence constituting a continuing threat to society. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Quintanilla to death.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No. AP-75,061

377th District Court of Victoria County

Womack, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

A jury found the appellant guilty of the November 24, 2002 capital murder of Victor Billings. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death based on the jury's verdict on the issues of punishment. ⁽¹⁾ In the appeal to this court, which a statute requires, ⁽²⁾ the appellant raises two points of error. We find them to be without merit, and we affirm the judgment.

At 2:30 p.m. on January 15, 2003, the appellant was taken before a magistrate for the warnings and other proceedings that Article 15.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required. ⁽³⁾ The appellant requested that an attorney be appointed.

As a result of a pre-trial hearing, the trial court entered the following required findings of fact and conclusions of law ⁽⁴⁾ concerning the admissibility of the appellant's statement contained in State's Exhibits 1a and 1b:

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel provides "prophylactic rights designed to counteract the 'inherently compelling pressures' of custodial interrogation." ⁽⁵⁾ The "right to counsel" under the Fifth Amendment may be waived, but its invocation prevents any further interrogation of a suspect unless counsel is present. ⁽⁶⁾

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel is not offense-specific, and it thus precludes interrogation regarding any offense in the absence of counsel once the right has been invoked. ⁽⁷⁾

The appellant seems to imply that his Fifth Amendment right to counsel was triggered by, at least in part, the magistrate's act of reading the Article 15.17 warnings that comply with Miranda. ⁽⁸⁾ However, the warnings themselves and the administration of those warnings do not confer the right. The right stems from its narrow association with the process of police custodial interrogation, and can be invoked only as a specific articulation of a desire for assistance of counsel with that process. ⁽⁹⁾

The appellant confuses the issue by interchanging Texas statutory provisions with U. S. constitutional law throughout his brief. His constitutional argument is based on language he extracts from Dowthitt v. State ⁽¹⁰⁾ and Articles 38.22 ⁽¹¹⁾ and 15.17. ⁽¹²⁾ Also, by referring to the Article 15.17 magistration warnings as "Miranda" warnings, he implies that the Article 15.17 proceeding has Fifth Amendment importance with regard to the right to counsel. It does not.

The appellant cites Robinson v. State ⁽¹³⁾ to argue that this court supports his position. The issue in Robinson, however, turned on whether the appellant had effectively requested assistance of counsel at all. ⁽¹⁴⁾ The appellant in that case was warned not only by two magistrates, but -- more importantly to the analysis -- twice by police as well. ⁽¹⁵⁾ The Court there did not identify precisely when the Fifth Amendment right would have attached, but the statement the Court found to fail as a request for counsel under the Fifth Amendment was made to police during interrogation, not to the magistrates. ⁽¹⁶⁾

First, the appellant claims that he invoked his Article 38.22 "right to counsel" at his magistration for aggravated robbery. Article 38.22 confers no such right. The statute governs the admissibility of an accused's statement and, among its provisions, outlines the procedures that must be followed in order to use that statement in a criminal proceeding. ⁽¹⁷⁾

The right conferred can better be expressed as a right to receive warnings: the accused must be given the equivalent of Miranda warnings in order for his statement as a result of custodial interrogation to be admissible. ⁽¹⁸⁾

The provision is satisfied merely by giving the warnings, without any obligation to ensure that the substance of the warnings is carried out. Section 3 of Article 38.22 applies to oral statements, and its provisions include the requirement of an electronic recording ⁽¹⁹⁾ and the requirement that during the recording the suspect must receive Article 38.22 warnings and voluntarily waive his or her rights. ⁽²⁰⁾

The appellant here does not suggest a violation of these requirements took place, and in fact the record supports the conclusion that State's Exhibit 29 complied with these statutory requirements. Further, the appellant acknowledges this court's holding that the warnings provision in Section 2 of Article 38.22 applying to written statements -- that warnings must be given by the person "to whom the statement is made" -- does not apply to oral statements. ⁽²¹⁾

Arriazola's warnings at the beginning of the appellant's interview were therefore effective for the purposes of Article 38.22, despite the fact that Santiago and Copeland were the officers present when the appellant made the statements at issue here. It is inconsequential that Santiago's later warnings failed to comply with Article 38.22.

Instead, the appellant argues: "Art. 38.22, Section 2(a), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically provides that receiving from a magistrate the warning provided in Article 15.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient to comply with the warnings requirement of Art. 38.22." ⁽²²⁾

This is essentially a rehashing of his Fifth Amendment argument: that since the appellant was warned by a magistrate during an Article 15.17 proceeding in a manner complying with Article 38.22, and invoked his right to counsel in that proceeding, his subsequent statement in the absence of counsel is inadmissible under Article 38.22.

This argument simply ignores the fact that Section 2 of Article 38.22 applies to written, not oral, statements, and that a magistrate's Article 15.17 warnings are ineffective as to oral statements, whose warnings must be given and waived on the actual recording. ⁽²³⁾ Article 38.22, Section 3 requirements were met; the magistrate's warnings are irrelevant to this determination.

The appellant also points to one particular warning given to him at his Article 15.17 proceeding for aggravated robbery: the "right to have an attorney present during any interview with peace officers." ⁽²⁴⁾ The appellant seems to assert that "any interview" should be read literally to mean any subsequent interview with police officers regarding any offenses, including those unrelated to that charge for which the appellant was magistrated, and that this right was therefore violated when the appellant was interviewed regarding the instant offense.

The Supreme Court in McNeil expressly rejected an identical argument on policy grounds: ⁽²⁵⁾

Since the ready ability to obtain uncoerced confessions is not an evil but an unmitigated good, society would be the loser. Admissions of guilt resulting from valid Miranda waivers "are more than merely 'desirable'; they are essential to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law." ⁽²⁶⁾

If the Miranda right to counsel can be invoked at a preliminary hearing, it could be argued, there is no logical reason why it could not be invoked by a letter prior to arrest, or indeed even prior to identification as a suspect. ⁽²⁷⁾

In point of error two, the appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting his "pen packet," labeled State's Exhibit 133, at the punishment phase. He specifically objects to the omission of the required seal on the certification page, which is required by Article 42.09 Section 8(b). ⁽²⁸⁾ This section provides:

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice shall not take a defendant into custody under this article until the designated officer receives the documents required by Subsections (a) and (c) of this section. The designated officer shall certify under the seal of the department the documents received under Subsections (a) and (c) of this section. A document certified under this subsection is self-authenticated for the purposes of Rules 901 and 902, Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence. ⁽²⁹⁾

At the punishment hearing, the trial court relied on Barker v. State ⁽³⁰⁾ in overruling the appellant's objection that the pen packet was not self-authenticated, referring to the Barker court's finding that Article 42.09 is not the sole method of authenticating this type of document. In Barker, the appellant had objected to the admission of his pen packets under Article 42.09, Section 8(b), claiming they were inadequately certified by the records clerk instead of by the director. ⁽³¹⁾

The trial court overruled his objection and admitted the documents. ⁽³²⁾ The appeals court agreed with the state's position that the documents met the requirements of Rule 902(4) for self-authentication and were not admitted in error. ⁽³³⁾ In so holding, the Court reasoned:

Rather, it is quite plausible that section 8(b)'s requirement is one automatic vehicle for admission that the legislature enacted to provide a sure-fire method of admission, but not an exclusive one. This seems the reasonable interpretation, while the interpretation of exclusivity seems the absurd one. ⁽³⁴⁾

Juan Manuel Quintanilla Jr.