Kenneth Walker v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County

Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-92-617-CR
AND
NO. 3-92-618-CR
KENNETH WALKER,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. 41,860 & 41,861, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Two indictments accusing appellant of delivering less than twenty-eight grams of cocaine were consolidated for trial. A jury found appellant guilty of both offenses. Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.112 (West 1992). The district court assessed punishment in each cause, enhanced by two previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for life.

Appellant's only point of error is that the evidence does not support the convictions. Darrin Winston, an undercover military police officer, testified that he purchased cocaine from appellant in January and February 1992. Appellant argues Winston's testimony was not credible because he knew appellant's identity only from photographs. Winston and civilian officers were engaged in an operation targeted at certain persons suspected of selling controlled substances to military personnel. The officer testified that he studied photographs of the targeted suspects, including appellant, before making his undercover purchases. At trial, he positively identified appellant as the man who sold him cocaine on the occasions in question.

The witness's credibility was a question for the jury. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (1979). When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Winston's testimony and that of the other State witnesses is legally sufficient to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The point of error is overruled.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed on Both Causes

Filed: May 12, 1993

[Do Not Publish]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.