other than the one charged in the indictment in this case. This evidence was admitted only for the purpose of assisting you, if it does, in determining the proper punishment for the offense for which you have found the defendant guilty. You cannot consider the testimony for any purpose unless you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other acts, if any, [sic] were committed. Green v. State, 72 S.W.3d 420, 425-26 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d). 7 . We note that the intermediate appellate courts are split on this issue. The Amarillo and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals agree with our court. See Gilbert v. State, No. 14-02-00727-CR, 2003 WL 22176625 at * 4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 23, 2003, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Salazar v. State, No. 07-01-0389-CR, 2002 WL
holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte provide instruction regarding extraneous offenses during guiltinnocence holding that trial court did not err because statutory duty under article 3707  3a does not apply to guiltinnocence phase and finding no error the court did not conduct harm analysis holding that trial court did not err holding that superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parent had not remedied the problematic conduct