Nichols v. State

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Maritza Antú Justice.
• Docket Number: 14-24-00372-CR
• Decision Date: 30 October 2025
• Citation: Nichols v. State, 14-24-00372-CR (Tex. App. Oct 30, 2025)
• Parties: NATHAN NICHOLS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

1

NATHAN NICHOLS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 14-24-00372-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District

October 30, 2025

Do Not Publish - Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1778644

Panel consists of Justices Bridges, Boatman, and Antú.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Maritza Antú Justice.

A Harris County jury convicted appellant Nathan Nichols of capital murder and sentenced him to life without parole. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03. In four issues on appeal, appellant claims (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to show he killed the complainant, (2) the trial court erred by admitting his parole status into evidence, (3) his right to a speedy trial was violated, and (4) the trial court erred by failing to exclude photographs from his Facebook account. We affirm.

Background

Aaron Riffe and Christopher Mitchell live in apartment 32 at the Meadow Creek Apartments located in Harris County, Texas. Kendall Deray Lee, the complainant, is Riffe's friend and the trio sold drugs out of the apartment. Inside the apartment was a kilo of cocaine worth about $22,000 that Riffe and Lee had recently purchased, along with pills marijuana, and several thousand dollars in cash. Outside the apartment, Riffe had installed surveillance cameras in different places and a Nest doorbell camera at the front door.

On the evening of February 21, 2022, Riffe and Lee were at the apartment alone. Riffe left the apartment to deliver drugs for Lee and returned shortly before 8:00 p.m. When he returned, he parked next to a white truck that was backed into a parking space. Just after parking and locking his vehicle, a masked man, who was later identified as Leroy Harris, wearing a black Nike hoodie put his arm around Riffe's neck, pointed a gun at his ribs, and threatened to "blow [Riffe's] head off" if he made a sound. Riffe did not realize Harris had an accomplice until a second man, who was later identified as appellant, wearing a light-colored True Religion hoodie ordered him to lead them to his apartment. Riffe complied and walked appellant and Harris towards his second-floor apartment at gunpoint. Appellant, who was not yet wearing his mask, walked ahead up the stairs to the first landing. He looked directly at the Nest doorbell camera and quickly moved but not before the camera captured his unmasked face. He asked Riffe how the camera worked, and Riffe lied, stating that the doorbell camera was not activated until reaching the second landing. Appellant then pulled his mask over his face.

At trial, the jury viewed the Nest doorbell video, which was admitted into evidence, showing the masked men ordering Riffe to call Lee and tell him to open the door. Riffe complied. As soon as Lee opened the door, appellant rushed to the second floor, while Harris forced Riffe upstairs at gunpoint. Lee saw the masked men with guns, closed the door, and barricaded himself against it to keep the men from entering the apartment. Appellant and Harris then started kicking the apartment door, but despite their efforts, they could not gain entry. Harris threatened to kill Riffe if Lee did not open the door. He then yelled, "I'm fixing to shoot through it. You better open it." After counting to three, appellant attempted to fire his gun with his left hand, but nothing happened because the safety was still engaged. The duo attempted to gain entry for a few more seconds before appellant disengaged his safety and fired two shots through the door, striking Lee twice.

With Lee injured, appellant and Harris forced their way into the apartment. Appellant demanded that Riffe and Lee lie on the floor. He held them at gunpoint while Harris located the drugs and money. Within a minute, the two fled from the apartment with a Gucci bag belonging to Lee and a trash bag containing a cellphone, drugs, and a large amount of cash. After appellant and Harris left, Riffe called 911, and Lee's neighbors in apartment 31 assisted him. Lee rose from the floor, staggered out of the apartment, and collapsed down the stairs to the first landing. He was pronounced dead at 8:19 p.m., about three minutes after law enforcement arrived at the scene. A few minutes after the crime occurred video surveillance from a nearby gas station captured a white truck turning out of the apartment complex with its headlights off. Law enforcement later discovered Harris owned a white truck resembling the one seen on the day of the capital murder.

During the investigation, law enforcement had not received any leads in Houston but traced the cellphone stolen during the robbery and learned Lee had connections in Beaumont. In an effort to identify the unmasked shooter, the Beaumont Police Department posted the Nest video on the department's Facebook page. Within minutes of releasing the video, Ashleigh Wilson, appellant's parole officer, identified appellant as the unmasked shooter. Joshua Thomas, a witness in an unrelated murder investigation involving Harris, also identified Harris as the masked shooter.

A jury found appellant guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This appeal followed.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his first issue, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, alleging the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed Lee. In other words, he argues the State failed to prove his identity as the shooter, insisting the only evidence connecting him to the murder came from several witnesses who were not eyewitnesses to the offense. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a capital murder conviction, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Our review of the evidence includes evidence both properly and improperly admitted. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The jury is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Juries may draw any reasonable inference from the facts so long as each inference is supported by the evidence. Id. Each fact need not point directly and independently to the defendant's guilt, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

To sustain a conviction for capital murder, as pleaded in this case, the State had to prove that appellant intentionally caused the death of an individual in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2).^[1] Appellant does not dispute that Lee died in the course of a robbery. Rather, he only challenges the element of identity-i.e., whether there was sufficient evidence that he was the person who committed the charged offense. We therefore limit our analysis accordingly. See Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (solely addressing the element of the offense that was challenged on appeal). A defendant's identity may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, coupled with all reasonable inferences from that evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (citing Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)).

B. The Evidence

At trial, Riffe testified that he and Lee used their apartment strictly for drug sales. Outside the apartment, he installed a Nest doorbell camera beside the front door. The Nest camera was linked to a Google account controlled by Lee, but he provided Riffe access by sharing the username and password. Exhibit 158, the Nest video, was admitted into evidence without objection. As the video played, Riffe described what occurred on February 21, 2022. He was returning from a 7-Eleven when a masked man grabbed him by the neck from behind and pressed a "rigid object" that felt like a gun into his ribs. A second man then appeared and asked where his apartment was. At gunpoint, Riffe led the men towards his second-floor apartment.

In the video, appellant walks up the stairs, pauses at the first landing, and looks at the apartment door equipped with the Nest camera. His mask is pushed up on his head, and although he tries to press his body against the wall, his face remains visible. Riffe testified that appellant noticed the doorbell camera and asked how it worked. Harris led Riffe to the first landing at gunpoint, and Riffe stated that the camera was not activated until reaching the second landing, misleading appellant about how the camera operated. Appellant then looks at the Nest camera again before pulling his mask down.

Riffe then testified that while still standing on the first landing, appellant and Harris told him to call Lee to open the door. He spoke briefly with Lee on the phone and told him to open the door. As soon as Lee opened the door, appellant ran to the second landing, and Harris directed Riffe to the second landing at gunpoint. When Lee saw that appellant and Harris had guns, he slammed the apartment door shut and barricaded himself against it to keep them from coming in. Riffe testified that appellant and Harris pushed him...