State, 695 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1985) PDR refused; and also Vessels v. State, 432 S.W.2d 108, 117 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) (On appellant’s motion for rehearing) (rules for admission under former Article 3731a are same for proof of prior convictions under Article 37.07, § 3, supra, and enhancement allegations). Indeed, appellant’s complaint is not that the documents in the pen packet are not authentic copies of the original judgment and sentence. Rather, his complaint is that they are not accurate copies. This complaint goes to the weight of the evidence only and not to its admissibility. See, Evans v. State, 677 S.W.2d 814, 819-820 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1984) no PDR; cf. Voss v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 610 S.W.2d 537 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st] 1980) writ ref’d, n.r.e. (<HOLDING>) In this regard, it is also noteworthy that
holding that the requirements of title iii apply and must be satisfied holdingthat a nurses progress notes were not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because while the nurses business duty to accurately record plaintiffs behavior ensured the accuracy of her notes it did not guarantee the accuracy of information provided to her by others not under a similar duty holding that the introduction of a computer into the claims does not render the idea patenteligible holding that once requirements of texrevid rule 806b were satisfied mechanical accuracy of computer and skill of operator went to weight and not admissibility of computer summary of business records holding that computer data compiled in the ordinary course of business and presented in computer printouts prepared for trial is admissible under rule 8036