Paul Antwann Harlan v. State
06-14-00236-CR
| Tex. App. | May 19, 2015Background
- Appellant Paul Antwann Harlan was indicted for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; jury convicted and assessed 50 years and a $10,000 fine; appeal follows.
- Robbery of Hilda’s Grocery (May 7, 2013): two masked suspects (one with a gun) stole money; one suspect (Latiki Bosman) was captured by security guards at the scene.
- Police found an abandoned Lexus after the robbery; a K-9 tracked from the car to items (hat, shirt, pistol) in a ditch; those items were submitted for DNA testing.
- A wallet found in the Lexus trunk contained Appellant’s social security card and birth certificate; officer Loeb used that plus his height assessment and DNA results to identify Harlan as the second suspect and obtain an arrest warrant.
- DNA testing produced mixed results: an "unknown male" profile strongly matched the shirt; hat samples weakly included Appellant as a possible contributor (probabilities 1 in 1,160 and 1 in 648); gun DNA was low-level and only included Appellant as a possible contributor.
- Appellant argues (1) identity not proven beyond reasonable doubt, (2) trial court erred in overruling objection to detective’s speculative testimony that Appellant placed his wallet in the trunk before the robbery, and (3–4) judgment needs correction (enhancement finding and erroneous “2nd” offense label).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence | Evidence (wallet, height, DNA) is circumstantial and insufficient to prove Harlan was the second robber beyond a reasonable doubt | Jury verdict should be sustained under Jackson/Brooks standard; credibility and inferences are for jury | Appellant requests reversal and acquittal (appeal argues insufficiency) |
| Admission of detective's speculative testimony | Detective Loeb speculated that Harlan placed his wallet in the trunk before the robbery; admission violated personal-knowledge rule and was prejudicial | Testimony was proper investigative testimony relevant to the case | Appellant requests reversal/remand due to harm from speculative testimony |
| Enhancement-paragraph finding | Judgment erroneously reflects a jury finding "true" on enhancement though record lacks signed punishment charge/verdict form showing such finding | State would argue record supports sentencing range and use of enhancements | Appellant requests reform to delete finding and remand for punishment if necessary |
| Incorrect offense designation in judgment | Judgment labels offense as "Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly Weapon 2nd," but record shows no prior aggravated-robbery conviction to justify "2nd" | State would argue clerical error can be corrected | Appellant requests correction of judgment to remove "2nd" designation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate review under Jackson; deference to jury credibility)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (inferences must be reasonable from combined evidence)
- Miller v. State, 667 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. Crim. App.) (State must prove defendant committed the offense)
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App.) (identity/criminal connection principles)
- Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless-error analysis for nonconstitutional error)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate authority to correct clerical/judgment errors)