Nowlin, Keiona Dashelle
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1131
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Keiona Nowlin encouraged her boyfriend, Demarcus Degrate, to flee when U.S. Marshals attempted to arrest him; she was charged with hindering apprehension.
- The State alleged Nowlin knew Degrate was charged with a felony, which elevated the offense to a third-degree felony; she was convicted and sentenced to four years.
- Degrate had a sealed federal indictment for felon in possession of a firearm; Marshals executed the sealed warrant and did not announce the specific charge at the scene.
- Witnesses testified Nowlin shouted at Degrate to run, recognized Marshals’ vehicles, tried to flee herself, and told an arresting officer she knew the Marshals and “didn’t want her man to get arrested.”
- The court of appeals upheld the felony conviction based on inferences from Nowlin’s statements, relationship with Degrate (including a tattoo), and escape attempt; this Court granted review on whether evidence sufficed to show Nowlin knew Degrate was charged with a felony.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held the evidence was insufficient to prove Nowlin’s knowledge of the sealed federal indictment and reformed the conviction to the misdemeanor lesser-included offense, remanding for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Nowlin’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Nowlin knew Degrate was charged with a felony | Sealed indictment prevented knowledge; no testimony that she knew the specific charge or that Marshals told them | Close relationship, warning to run, recognition of Marshals’ vehicles, and flight support an inference she knew the felony charge | Evidence insufficient to prove knowledge of the sealed federal indictment; felony enhancement reversed |
| Whether state-bond knowledge could supply felony knowledge | She only knew he was on bond; no proof the state charge was a felony or she knew its nature | Knowledge he was on bond and her attitude toward arrest supports inference of knowledge | State-bond information insufficient because nature of state charge was not proved |
| Whether circumstantial inferences (tattoo, escape, warning) suffice | These are unsupported when no evidence Degrate knew of the sealed indictment | Cumulative circumstantial evidence permits a reasonable inference of knowledge | Inferences unreasonable without any evidence Degrate knew of the sealed indictment |
| Remedy if felony enhancement fails | Request acquittal on felony count | Urges reform to misdemeanor hindering as lesser-included offense | Judgment reformed to misdemeanor hindering apprehension; remanded for punishment hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (role of appellate court in assessing legal sufficiency)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to factfinder’s credibility and weight determinations)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may suffice for conviction)
- Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedure for reforming conviction to lesser-included offense)
- Canida v. State, 434 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (lesser-included reform when evidence supports only a lesser offense)