Harlan, Paul Antwann, PD-1272-15

On May 7, 2013 two masked men robbed Hilda’s Grocery in Dallas; one (the shorter gunman) fled and later a crashed Lexus tied to the scene was found nearby. Co-defendant Latiki Bosman was captured at the store.
Items (a gun, camouflage hat, dark shirt) were recovered near a bridge after a K‑9 track; a search of the crashed Lexus’s trunk produced Paul Harlan’s wallet and cell phone along with Latiki’s.
DNA testing: shirt cutting produced an "unknown male" profile (excluded Harlan); hat cuttings produced a mixed profile that included Harlan as a possible contributor with conservative random match probabilities of 1 in 1,160 and 1 in 648; gun sample was low‑level DNA and Harlan was a possible contributor with a 1‑in‑7 conservative probability.
Witness identification was weak: store employees did not identify either suspect; Juan Pina (the would‑be carjacking victim) identified Keonte Bosman in a photo lineup and could not positively identify Harlan at trial.
Harlan was tried and convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; sentenced to 50 years. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed with modification (removing an erroneous recitation of a prior like offense).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Harlan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of identity evidence	Evidence insufficient: wallet in trunk, height comparisons, and DNA do not prove Harlan was the gunman beyond reasonable doubt	Circumstantial evidence (video, personal effects in trunk, DNA inclusion on hat/gun, inferences about relationships) permits a rational jury to find identity	Affirmed: viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could find Harlan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Admission of detective Loeb’s testimony that suspects likely placed wallets in trunk	Testimony was speculative and improperly vouched/inferential	Testimony was investigative opinion based on facts and officer experience and admissible; similar evidence was received without objection	Not reversible error; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting the testimony
Trial court judgment misreciting prior‑offense language	Judgment erroneously labeled conviction as a second offense	State agreed the judgment required correction	Court modified the judgment to remove the incorrect recitation and affirmed as modified
Enhancement finding on record	Record does not clearly show jury found enhancement "true"; Harlan argued this affects punishment range	Trial record included plea of true, prior judgment introduced; presumption of regularity supports the judgment	Court presumed required finding and declined to modify; refusal to disturb enhancement finding affirmed

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences are as probative as direct evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate standard of review for sufficiency claims following Jackson)
Miller v. State, 667 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (State must prove the defendant is the person who committed the offense)