Ben Chambless v. State, 368 S.W.3d 785

Chambless was convicted by a jury of criminally negligent homicide; the jury found a deadly weapon was used and the punishment was enhanced to a third-degree felony range per section 12.35(c)(1).
The jury assessed Chambless's punishment at eight years in confinement, within the third-degree felony range due to the deadly-weapon enhancement.
Chambless was indicted for manslaughter; at trial the jury was charged on manslaughter and the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, and they convicted the latter as alleged.
The underlying conduct occurred the early morning of June 5, 2007, when Chambless fired multiple shots into his yard, striking Berg and causing Berg’s death; Chambless testified he did not fire in self-defense and had not seen Berg prior to shooting.
Chambless argued that the statutory enhancement for use of a deadly weapon should not apply to criminally negligent homicide, asserting a conflict between sections 12.35(c)(1) and 19.05.
The court held that the enhancement provision does apply to criminally negligent homicide, and that the statutes can be harmonized; the trial court’s jury instruction reflecting the enhancement was not error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 12.35(c)(1) apply to negligent homicide?	Chambless argues enhancement cannot apply to negligent homicide.	State contends enhancement applies where deadly weapon used in negligent homicide.	Yes; enhancement applies.
Do 12.35(c)(1) and 19.05 conflict or can they be harmonized?	Chambless claims irreconcilable conflict making negligent homicide not subject to enhancement.	State asserts no irreconcilable conflict; Crumpton supports application; statutes harmonizable.	They do not conflict; harmonizable; enhancement applies.

Crumpton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (upholds application of 12.35(c)(1) to negligent homicide)
State v. DeLay, 208 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (intermediate court adherence to Crumpton)
Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (statutes generally touch on same subject; in pari materia considerations)
Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (statutory interpretation guidance on irreconcilable conflicts)
Guzman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (definition of 'deadly weapon' broad and factual context)
Dunn v. State, 176 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (discusses application of deadly-weapon concept in negligent homicide)