Daniel Raymond Campouris v. State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-389-CR

DANIEL RAYMOND CAMPOURIS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 1999-520-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Campouris was indicted and convicted of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and two counts of indecency with a child. He alleges the trial court erred in not giving an instruction in the jury charge limiting the jury s consideration of extraneous offense evidence. We affirm the judgment.ISSUE ON APPEALCampouris argues that the trial court committed error resulting in egregious harm by failing to instruct the jury in the charge regarding the limitations on the use of extraneous offense evidence. Extraneous offense evidence is admitted for all purposes unless there is a limiting instruction at the time it is admitted. Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); see also Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 892, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). After Campouris filed his appeal the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that without a request for a limiting instruction at the time the extraneous offense evidence was admitted the trial court does not err by failing or refusing to give a limiting instruction in the jury charge. Id. Because Campouris did not request a limiting instruction at the time the extraneous offense evidence was admitted, a limiting instruction was not within the applicable law of the case to be included in the jury charge. Id. at 895. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to include a limiting instruction in the jury charge. Campouris sole issue is overruled.CONCLUSION

Having overruled Campouris only issue, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 27, 2002

Do not publish

[CRPM]