Nowlin v. State

• Decision Date: 28 October 2015
• Docket Number: NO. PD–0840–14,PD–0840–14
• Citation: Nowlin v. State, 473 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)
• Parties: Keiona Dashelle Nowlin, Appellant v. The State of Texas
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

473 S.W.3d 312

Keiona Dashelle Nowlin, Appellant

v.The State of Texas

NO. PD–0840–14

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Delivered: October 28, 2015

John Donahue, for Appellant.

Gabriel Price, for The State of Texas.

OPINION

Meyers, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Appellant was convicted of hindering apprehension after encouraging her boyfriend, Demarcus Degrate, to run from United States Marshals who were arresting him.Because the State alleged that Appellant knew that Degrate was charged with a felony, her offense was elevated to a third-degree felony, and she was sentenced to four years in prison.Appellant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.Nowlin v. State,No. 10–12–00239–CR, 2014 WL 2069277, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309(Tex.App.-WacoMay 15, 2014)(mem.op.).The court of appeals found the evidence to be sufficient and affirmed Appellant's conviction.Id. at *4–5, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309 at *12.We granted Appellant's petition of discretionary review to determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that she knew Degrate was charged with a felony offense.

FACTS

Degrate was charged in federal court with the offense of felon in possession of a firearm.His indictment was sealed.At the time of the incident, he was also on bond for state charges, but no evidence was presented as to what those charges were.Deputy United States Marshal Kevin Scott went to Degrate's address to execute the sealed federal warrant.When he saw Degrate and Appellant exit the home, Scott followed in his car, activated his lights and siren, and yelled at them to stop.At that point, Degrate fled and Scott immediately began chasing him.Scott testified that he did not hear Appellant say anything to Degrate and that he did not inform Appellant and Degrate why he was stopping them before Degrate began to flee.

United States Marshal Clayton Brown testified that he responded to the scene after Degrate began fleeing and that he came across Appellant and heard her shouting "Run baby run!Get away."Brown also explained that all of the officers were wearing clothing that labeled them as such, and therefore, it would have been easy to identify them.

Deputy United States Marshal Anton Slavich was a backup officer who arrived on the scene shortly after.He testified that he saw Appellant running while he was pursuing Degrate, and decided to go after her.He was able to stop her and detained her in his car in order to find out why she was running.She then attempted to flee from the car, but Slavich caught up with her and placed her under arrest for escape.He testified that she stated to him that when she saw the officers, she told Degrate, "Those are the marshals." or "That's the laws.Run."Slavich testified that Appellant explained to him that she knew the cars that the Marshals drove because people in the neighborhood had pictures of them.Appellant also told Slavich that she did not want Degrate to get arrested and knew that he was out on bond for the state charges and that he was supposed to turn himself in on Wednesday of that week for failing to make payments.Slavich also testified that Appellant had "Demarcus Degrate" tattooed across her chest, near her collarbone.

At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the third-degree felony of hindering apprehension and sentenced her to four years in prison.

COURT OF APPEALS

Appellant appealed her conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that she"warned"Demarcus Degrate of impending apprehension or that she had knowledge that Degrate was charged with a felony offense.Nowlin,2014 WL 2069277 at *1, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309 at *1.

Appellant asserted that she could not "warn" Degrate of impending apprehension because he was already aware of the officers' presence when she said something to him.However, the court of appeals held that Slavich's testimony about what Appellant had said to Degrate provided sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant had "warned" Degrate of discovery or apprehension.Id. at *3–4, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309 at *9–10.This issue is not being considering in the present case.

Appellant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence enhancing her conviction for hindering apprehension from a misdemeanor to a third-degree felony under Texas Penal Code section 38.05(d).Id. at *3–4, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309 at *10–11.She argued that, because the federal warrant was sealed and no one testified about the offense for which Degrate was on bond, the evidence did not show that she knew Degrate was charged with a felony.Id.

The court of appeals, however, disagreed.It pointed out that Appellant admitted that she knew Degrate had a problem with his bond and that she did not "want her man to get arrested."Id. at *4, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309 at *11.She also recognized the Marshals' vehicles and warned Degrate that they were there to arrest him.Id.The court of appeals also asserted that having Degrate's name tattooed on her indicated that Appellant and Degrate had a close relationship.Id.Finally, it considered the fact that Appellant made attempts to escape apprehension herself.Id.Relying on these pieces of evidence, the court of appeals held that it was not unreasonable for the trial court to infer that she had knowledge that Degrate was charged with a felony and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.Id. at *4–5, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 5309 at *11–12.Justice Gray dissented without an opinion.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Appellant argues that, because the federal indictment was sealed, it was kept secret, and she could not have had knowledge of its existence.Further, there was no evidence presented as to what state offense Degrate was on bond for or that Appellant knew what offense he was on bond for.Appellant never stated that she knew what Degrate was charged with, and none of the officers testified that they told either Appellant or Degrate what offense they were arresting Degrate for.Appellant asserts that having a close relationship with Degrate cannot go to show that she had knowledge of the charges against Degrate when that indictment was sealed, and neither of them could have known about the felony arrest warrant.Appellant concludes that, while the evidence may have shown that she"did not want her man to get arrested," none of the evidence tended to prove that she knew Degrate was charged with a felony and, therefore, the State failed to prove an element of the crime for which Appellant was convicted.Appellant asks us to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

The State argues that the evidence was, in fact, sufficient, and that we should uphold the judgment of the court of appeals.It says that the intimate relationship between Appellant and Degrate is evidence that she knew about important details of his life, including what crimes he had committed and what he was wanted for.The State asserts that Appellant knew about Degrate's criminal charges and that he was going to be arrested, which is sufficient to prove that she knew he was wanted on a felony charge.The State also argues that Appellant's warning to Degrate to run and her own attempt to flee custody are additional evidence that she had knowledge of the serious nature of Degrate's criminal conduct.It posits that she took the risk of fleeing because she had knowledge of the seriousness of the charges against Degrate.Finally, the State reasons that, because Appellant knew the marshals' vehicles on sight and stated that she"didn't want her man to get arrested,"she knew they were there to arrest Degrate and, because of their close relationship, she knew why.The State maintains that whether the indictment was sealed is irrelevant because Appellant's actions, admissions, relationship with Degrate, and knowledge of his criminal activity are sufficient to prove her knowledge of Degrate's charges and uphold her conviction.

In the alternative, the State explains, if we find the evidence of Appellant's knowledge of Degrate's charges to be insufficient, then we should reform the judgment to the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor hindering apprehension rather than enter an acquittal.Canida v. State,434 S.W.3d 163, 166(Tex.Crim.App.2014)(citingThornton v. State,425 S.W.3d 289(Tex.Crim.App.2014) ).The State asserts that, because knowledge of Degrate's felony charge is an aggravating factor, all of the essential elements of misdemeanor hindering apprehension have necessarily been found by the factfinder.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

It is our responsibility to ensure that the verdict is supported by the evidence the State presented and that the evidence is legally sufficient to prove each element of the offense charged.Montgomery v. State,369 S.W.3d 188, 192(Tex.Crim.App.2012).In evaluating whether the evidence presented in a case was sufficient to support a conviction, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found each essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979);Williams v. State,270 S.W.3d 140, 142(Tex.Crim.App.2008).If a rational trier of fact would necessarily have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, due process requires the conviction to be reversed.Swearingen v. State,101 S.W.3d 89, 95(Tex.Crim.App.2003)(citingNarvaiz v. State,840 S.W.2d 415, 423(Tex.Crim.App.1992) ).We defer to the factfinder's determinations on witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony and do not substitute our judgment on these matters.Brooks v. State,323 S.W.3d 893, 899(Tex.Crim.App.2010).If there are conflicting inferences that could be supported by the evidence in...