Hampton, Walter Jr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 23, 2003
• Docket: 01-00-00798-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 23, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-00-00798–CR

---

WALTER HAMPTON, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 829,055

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

          Appellant was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The jury instead convicted him of sexual assault, a lesser-included offense that had been submitted to the jury at the State’s request and over appellant’s objection. Upon appellant’s plea of true to two felony enhancement allegations, the trial court sentenced him to 40 years’ confinement. On December 6, 2001, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hampton v. State, 66 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001). The Court of Criminal Appeals granted appellant’s sole ground for review, which challenged this Court’s conclusion that the State was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of sexual assault. 109 S.W.3d 437, 438-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The Court held that the lesser-included-offense instruction of sexual assault was not warranted by the evidence, reversed our decision, and remanded for us to conduct a harmless error analysis. Id. at 441-42. We reverse and remand.

Harm Analysis

          The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded the cause to this Court for a determination of harm pursuant to Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Harm occurs when a defendant is found guilty of a lesser offense in the absence of any evidence he is guilty only of the lesser offense. See Arevalo v. State, 987 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (op. on second remand). Such harm occurred here because appellant was found guilty of the lesser offense.

          Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the offense of sexual assault, even though appellant claims that he should not have received a jury instruction on sexual assault. We recognize the dissent’s statement that this disposition “creates such illogical results.” Hampton, 109 S.W.3d at 442 (Keller, P.J. dissenting). Conclusion

          The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial on the offense of sexual assault.

                                                             Adele Hedges

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Nuchia, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.