Latoya Sekeitha Erwin v. State
12-16-00261-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Latoya Erwin was charged with and convicted by a jury of criminal trespass (Class B misdemeanor) for returning to an apartment complex after receiving a criminal trespass warning; the jury sentenced her to 60 days but recommended community supervision, and the trial court placed her on 20 months' community supervision.
- On May 18, 2015, property manager Elizabeth Shepherd, in the presence of police and assistant manager Catherine Frederick, gave Erwin a verbal criminal trespass warning and never rescinded it while she remained property manager.
- Erwin returned to the property on December 26, 2015; Officer Brian Russell investigated, confirmed the prior warning had not been rescinded in records, and arrested Erwin for criminal trespass.
- Erwin testified she believed the trespass warning had been "lifted" after discussing the matter with property staff in October 2015, but she conceded she was never directly told she could return.
- New property manager Amanda Warren testified she was unaware of the prior warning and had not given Erwin permission to return; Frederick and Warren did not recall rescinding the warning or explicitly authorizing Erwin to re-enter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support criminal trespass conviction | State: Evidence shows Erwin received a valid trespass warning and returned without consent | Erwin: She believed the trespass warning had been rescinded and thus had effective consent to re-enter | Court: Viewing evidence in favor of prosecution, a rational jury could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sets the legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard is the sole standard for sufficiency review in Texas)
- Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (jury's role in resolving conflicts and drawing inferences)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (presumption that factfinder resolved conflicting inferences for prosecution)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- Hernandez v. State, 190 S.W.3d 856 (guilt may rest on combined force of incriminating circumstances)