NO. 07-08 -001 6-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA RC H 6, 20 09

_________

_________

_________

___ ALTON D EGRATE H AW KIN S, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 54 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF MC L EN NA N CO UNT Y; TH NO. 200 6-16 86-C2; HON. GEORGE ALL EN, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Al ton D eg ra te H aw ki ns (a ppel lan t) appeal s h is co nv ic ti on for capi tal murder

. The
re cord i ll ust ra tes thatappel lan t di re cte d tw o ac compl ic es (H ouse and J ohnso n) to shoot the v ic ti m ( Perez ). The lat ter w as to be s hot a s h e drov e aw ay i n hi s t ru ck

w it h H ouse and Johns on as hi s p ass eng ers. H ouse and J ohnso n c ompli ed w it h the di re cti v e. T h ro u g h fo u r

i s s u e s , a p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d b e r e v e rs e d

. W e dis ag re e and aff ir m it

.2

Iss ue On e–Pur

por ted Hear say T est im ony Appel lan t i nit ial ly

co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n admi tti ng i nto e v ide nce the pur por ted hearsay tes ti mony of w it ness Ki mbrel l. The l atter tes ti fied th at he ov er heard a prost it ute i nform appel lan t t hat P erezca rr ied on h is person a l arg e s um o f m o n e y. The
w it ness al so disclo se d t h a t h e heard appel lan t repl y that“ w e need to g et t hat” and then
saw appel la n t ent er

hi s h ome to re tr iev e a “ g un.” I n ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s h earsay obj ect ion , t he tr ial cour t coul d hav e reason abl y co ncl uded t hat t he prost it ute’ s s tatement
w as not o ff er ed for the t ru th of the matte r ass erted bu t rather for i ts eff ecton a ppel lan t. T his seem s espe cially so giv en appe llant’s eventua l reply abo ut need ing “to get that .” See In re Be xa r Co u n t

y Crim . Dist. Attorne y’

s Office , 224 S.W .3d 1 82, 1 88- 89 ( Tex . 200 7) (n oti ng thata s tatementi s n ot he arsay “ if offered for [i ts] ef

fect on the li ste ner

rather than for th e t ru th of

the matter

as ser ted.” ). C onseq uentl y , t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n ov er ru li ng the obj ect ion , and w e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Iss ue T wo – Ac com

plice W it ness Ins tr uct ion Next, appel lan t c omplai ns of the tr ial co urt’ s fai lure to all ude t o the aforement ion ed p ro s t i t u t e i n i t s a c c o mp l i c e w i t n e s s i n s t r u c t i o n . Y e t , t h e w o ma n d i d n o ta p p e a r a n d t e s t i fy at t ri al. Thus, there w as no need to inc lud e her in the ins tr uct ion

. Bi nghamv. Sta te , 913 S.W .2d 2 08, 209- 13 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1995) (hol din g that ar t. 38.14 of the Tex as Cod e of Criminal Proce dure enco mp asses te stimo ny by w itnesse s mad e un der oa th attrial). Iss ue T hr ee–Abs ence of Li

m it ing Ins tr uct ion Appel lan t next c omplai ns about the a bsenc e of a l imi ti ng i nst ru cti on reg ardin g the conf ession of

House. Such an instruction w as no t requested of the trial court, and beca use3

it wa s n o t , any compla int ab outits absen ce can notbe raised on ap pea l. T EX
. R. E V ID
. 105( a)

. The is sue is ov er ru led

. Iss ue F our –De adl y Weapon Fi nal ly , appel lan t cont ends that the tr ial cour t er re d in inc lud ing , in it s j udg ment, a deadl y w e apon find ing

. This pur por tedl y w as er ro r becau se 1) he h ad no noti ce of the Sta te’s inte nt to seek an af f irmative f inding on the u se of a d ead ly

weapo n and 2 ) th e jury did not ex press ly

find t hat h e us ed a deadl y w eapon. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Vi a its indi ctment , the State charg ed appell ant w it h causi ng the death of Pere zby “shoo ting him w ith a f irearm . . . .” The reafter, the jury foun d ap pellan t “g uilty of the of fense of Capi tal M urder , as all eged in the i

ndictm ent .” ( Em pha sis adde d). Th ose circum stan ces, acc ordin g to the opi nio n of ou r Cou rt of Cr imi nal Appea ls i n LaFleur v. Sta te , 106 S.W .3d 91 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) , w ere enoug h to suppo rtthe t rial c our t’ s a cti on. Id. at 95- 96. Mo re ov er , referenc e i n the i ndi ct m e n t to a ppel lan t “ shoot ing hi m w it h a firear m” w as suf f icient no tice to ap pellan t of the Sta te’s inten t to obtain an af f irmative f inding on th e use of a deadl y

w eapon. Nar

ro n v . St ate, 835 S.W .2d 642 , 643 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92). Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.