Shaylor Alan Lambert v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00337-CR
SHAYLOR ALAN LAMBERT APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1356789D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
I. INTRODUCTION
After finding Appellant Shaylor Alan Lambert guilty of the offense of
unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a jury assessed his punishment at
fifteen years’ confinement, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a)(1) (West 2011). In his sole issue, Lambert
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his gang affiliation
during the punishment phase of the trial. We will affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
During the punishment phase, the State introduced evidence of Lambert’s
affiliation with the Aryan Circle, a white supremacist gang. Lambert objected to
the introduction of such evidence, arguing that it violated his First Amendment
right of free association. The trial court overruled Lambert’s objection and
allowed the State to present evidence of his affiliation with the Aryan Circle.
The State called Officer Chris Wells, a fourteen year veteran of the Fort
Worth Police Department’s gang intelligence section, to testify regarding
Lambert’s gang affiliation. Officer Wells testified that the Aryan Circle is a spin-
off group of the Aryan Brotherhood, with the group’s origins centered around
white supremacist beliefs. While originating as a prison gang, the Aryan Circle
also operates as a criminal street gang outside of the prison structure. Officer
Wells testified that the Aryan Circle is involved with property crimes, crimes
against persons, and narcotics, particularly methamphetamine.
Officer Wells also testified about Lambert’s numerous gang-related tattoos.
Lambert’s left pectoral contained a tattoo of a skull imposed over a swastika.
The eye sockets of the skull contained lightning bolts, symbols associated with
the Nazi SS. Lambert’s left arm contained a tattoo of the word “White,” while his
right arm contained a tattoo of the word “Pride.” Most notably, Lambert had a
diamond-shaped tattoo on his left side that contained a swastika and lightning
2
bolts inside of the diamond. The initials “A” and “C” adorned the sides of the
diamond. Officer Wells testified that this tattoo is referred to as the “AC diamond”
in the gang world and is specific to the Aryan Circle. He characterized Lambert’s
tattoos as gang-related and consistent with membership in the Aryan Circle.
Officer Wells testified that violent ramifications can result when a
nonmember or disassociated member displays tattoos associated with a gang.
He stated that gang members have been known to cut tattoos off of individuals
who are not in good standing with the gang. A member who wishes to
disassociate from a gang will, according to Officer Wells, typically black out any
tattoo associated with the gang or have the tattoo concealed with a cover-up
tattoo. Officer Wells testified that the fact that Lambert had not gotten any cover-
up tattoos suggested that he had not disassociated from the Aryan Circle.
The State also called Ramona Wisdom to testify, a woman who had talked
to Lambert on several occasions while visiting her friend with whom Lambert
stayed, to prove Lambert’s affiliation with the Aryan Circle. Wisdom testified that
she had asked Lambert about his tattoos and that he had told her they were from
“the Aryan Brotherhood.” Wisdom also described a conversation with Lambert
during the fall prior to his arrest when he had told her that his “brothers had his
back whenever.”
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse of
discretion standard. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App.
3
2000); Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 613 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied,
522 U.S. 917 (1997). A trial court does not abuse its discretion as long as the
decision to admit the evidence is within the zone of reasonable disagreement.
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on
reh’g).
IV. EVIDENCE OF GANG AFFILIATION
In his sole issue, Lambert claims that the trial court’s punishment-phase
admission of evidence relating to his affiliation with the Aryan Circle violated his
First Amendment right of free association. The First Amendment protects an
individual’s right to join associations with others holding similar beliefs. Dawson
v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 163, 112 S. Ct. 1093, 1096 (1992); Mason v. State,
905 S.W.2d 570, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1051 (1996).
However, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of
evidence concerning one’s beliefs and associations at punishment merely
because those beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment.
Dawson, 503 U.S. at 165, 112 S. Ct. at 1097; Mason, 905 S.W.2d at 576. Such
evidence may be admissible if it is shown to be relevant to the issues involved in
the case. Dawson, 503 U.S. at 164–65, 112 S. Ct. at 1097; Mason, 905 S.W.2d
at 576–77.
Evidence of gang membership may be relevant at the punishment phase
of the trial to show the character of the defendant. Mason, 905 S.W.2d at 577;
Anderson v. State, 901 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). To prove the
4
relevance of a defendant’s gang membership, the State must establish proof of
the gang’s violent and illegal activities and the defendant’s membership in the
gang. Mason, 905 S.W.2d at 576–77; Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452, 456
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Evidence of a defendant’s gang membership is
admissible as long as the jury is (1) provided with evidence of the defendant’s
gang membership, (2) provided with evidence of the character and reputation of
the gang, (3) not required to determine if the defendant committed the bad acts
or misconduct attributable to the gang generally, and (4) only asked to consider
the reputation or character of the accused. Beasley, 902 S.W.2d at 457.
Here, Lambert contends that the only evidence of his affiliation with the
Aryan Circle stems from an affiliation in the past, during the mid-1990s,2 while the
only evidence presented of the character and reputation of the Aryan Circle
relates to its present-day reputation. Thus, according to Lambert, the trial court
erred in admitting evidence of his affiliation with the Aryan Circle because the
State did not present evidence of the activities of the Aryan Circle in the past
during the time period in which he was a member. Officer Wells, however,
testified that Lambert’s tattoos were consistent with membership in the Aryan
Circle. He also testified that the fact that Lambert had not gotten any cover-up
2
The record does not reflect when Lambert received his gang-related
tattoos. Lambert contends in his brief, however, that he received the tattoos
while in prison in the mid-1990s. Regardless of when he first received the
tattoos, there is evidence to support the notion that Lambert was affiliated with
the Aryan Circle at the time of his sentencing.
5
tattoos suggested that he had not disassociated himself from the Aryan Circle;
disassociated members covered their Aryan Circle tattoos or suffered
consequences from the gang. The evidence also consists of the testimony of
Ramona Wisdom, who stated that Lambert told her that his tattoos were from the
“Aryan Brotherhood” and that his “brothers had his back whenever.” This is
evidence that Lambert was affiliated with the Aryan Circle at the time of his
sentencing. Consequently, the evidence was relevant to his character, and the
admission of it was not outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. See
Anderson, 901 S.W.2d at 950 (gang membership relevant to show character in
non-capital sentencing).
Lambert also contends that the evidence regarding his affiliation with the
Aryan Circle enflamed the emotions of the jury in violation of the First
Amendment. In support of this proposition, Lambert cites Dawson, arguing that
the facts of that case fit the facts of his own. Dawson is distinguishable because
the holding in Dawson turned on a narrow stipulation of facts about the gang of
which Dawson was a member that was offered in lieu of the State calling an
expert witness. Dawson, 503 U.S. at 165, 112 S. Ct. at 1097. That stipulation
simply read: “The Aryan Brotherhood refers to a white racist prison gang that
began in the 1960’s in California in response to other gangs of racial minorities.
Separate gangs calling themselves the Aryan Brotherhood now exist in many
state prisons including Delaware.” Id. at 170, 112 S. Ct. at 1100. The Supreme
Court concluded that the narrowness of the stipulation left the evidence of gang
6
membership without relevance, as the State had not established that the Aryan
Brotherhood committed any unlawful or violent acts. Id. at 165–66, 112 S. Ct. at
1097–98. Because the evidence was not relevant, the Supreme Court ruled that
such evidence should not have been admitted. Id. at 167, 112 S. Ct. at 1098.
The Supreme Court noted, however, that in other cases where evidence of a
gang’s unlawful or violent acts existed,
associational evidence might serve a legitimate purpose in showing
that a defendant represents a future danger to society. A
defendant’s membership in an organization that endorses the killing
of any identifiable group, for example, might be relevant to a jury's
inquiry into whether the defendant will be dangerous in the future.
Id. at 166, 112 S. Ct. at 1098.
Unlike Dawson, here the State presented evidence that the Aryan Circle
was associated with violent and illegal activities. Namely, the State presented
evidence that the Aryan Circle is involved in property crimes, crimes against
persons, and narcotics crimes. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting evidence of Lambert’s association with the Aryan Circle.
We overrule Lambert’s sole issue.
V. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Lambert’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
7
DELIVERED: October 15, 2015
8