Opinion
No. 05-11-00063-CR
07-26-2012
KENNETH WAYNE LAMPKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed July 26, 2012.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F08-53723-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Moseley
A jury convicted Kenneth Wayne Lampkins of possession of one gram or more but less than four grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. Lampkins pleaded true to an enhancement allegation. The jury found the enhancement allegation true and assessed punishment at forty-seven years' confinement. Lampkins argues on appeal that the trial court erred during the punishment phase by refusing to give the jury an accomplice-witness instruction.
The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
At punishment, the State offered evidence that after the drug offense, Lampkins committed manslaughter by randomly firing several shots from an assault rifle at a house, killing Sandra Phillips who was inside the house. Kevin Reynolds testified that one night he was riding with his friend, Damon Johnson, when they stopped and picked up Lampkins. Reynolds did not know Lampkins very well. Lampkins told Johnson to drive to another location where Lampkins got out and returned with an assault rifle. Lampkins then told Johnson to drive to another house, where Lampkins got out and fired several shots at the house. Lampkins got back in the vehicle and they drove away.
Lampkins contends that Reynolds was an accomplice and that the trial court erred by refusing his request for an accomplice-witness instruction in the punishment charge. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.38.14 (West 2005). However, the accomplice witness rule is not applicable to extraneous offense evidence offered during the punishment stage of a noncapital case. See Goodman v. State, 8 S.W.3d 362, 365 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (“article 38.14 does not apply to extraneous offense testimony by an accomplice witness at the punishment stage of a noncapital trial”); see also Vasquez v. State, 56 S.W.3d 46, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (accomplice witness rule inapplicable to extraneous offenses presented during punishment phase of capital murder case). We overrule Lampkins's sole issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
110063F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KENNETH WAYNE LAMPKINS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00063-CR
Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F08-53723-N).
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Morris and Myers participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 26, 2012.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE