Fifth District Court Upholds Murder Conviction of Wendell Lancaster in Kaufman County Shooting
DALLAS — The Fifth District Court of Appeals has upheld the murder conviction and life sentence of Wendell Lancaster, a 70-year-old man found guilty of the fatal shooting of Breanna Mendosa in Kaufman County in 2024.
In an opinion filed on January 29, 2026, the court dismissed Lancaster's primary argument that he was entitled to a "self-defense" instruction during his trial.
The Night of the Shooting
The incident unfolded on April 10, 2024, after Lancaster spent the day with Mendosa and two other acquaintances. According to court documents:
The Dispute: Following a visit to Whataburger, Lancaster accused Mendosa of stealing his billfold, which contained $600.
The Encounter: Lancaster testified that Mendosa had allegedly assaulted him and threatened him with a gun and a knife while inside his vehicle.
The Shooting: After dropping Mendosa off at her residence, Lancaster returned to his home to "rest," only to later revisit her house to demand the return of his wallet. Upon hearing police sirens in the vicinity, Lancaster fired his weapon three times, hitting Mendosa twice.
When Terrell police arrived at the scene, Lancaster was found standing in the driveway, immediately informing officers, "the gun he’d killed her with was sitting on the car." Mendosa was located in a back bedroom and later succumbed to her injuries at the hospital, suffering from gunshot wounds to her neck and the back of her head.
The Appeal: A Question of Self-Defense
Lancaster’s appeal focused on the trial court's refusal to provide self-defense as an option in the jury instructions. His defense argued that since Lancaster claimed to be "in fear" and believed Mendosa was armed, the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the shooting was justified.
However, Justice Bonnie Lee Goldstein highlighted several factors that undermined this assertion:
The "Cooling Period": Lancaster had safely left Mendosa’s home and returned to his residence to rest prior to choosing to go back armed with a firearm.
Lack of Immediate Threat: Lancaster conceded that he did not witness a weapon when he shot Mendosa. Additionally, no weapons or the allegedly stolen billfold were ever recovered from Mendosa’s residence.
Motive for Fear: The court determined that Lancaster's testimony indicated he shot Mendosa out of fear of being arrested as a thief upon hearing sirens, rather than due to any immediate threat posed by Mendosa.
"Lancaster’s testimony... did not establish that Lancaster had a reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself," the court concluded.
Final Judgment
Given that the evidence did not support a rational finding of self-defense, the appellate court ruled that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions. Lancaster will continue to serve his life sentence as determined by the 422nd Judicial District Court.
