Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-10-2021
Case Style:
Charles Cleveland Nowden v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 02-20-00098-CR
Judge: Brian Walker
Court: Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph W. Spence
Shelby White
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Fort Worth, TX - Criminal defense attorney represented Charles Cleveland Nowden with Appealing from an Order Denying DNA Testing.
On November 6, 2009, Nowden ordered two hot dogs, a bucket of popcorn,
and two sodas at a movie theater, paying with a twenty-dollar bill. The concession
employee, Stephen Howard, tested the bill with a counterfeit-detection pen and
determined that the bill had been forged. An assistant manager alerted the theater’s
security officer, Mike Lemoine, that someone was trying to pass “some not real
money.” Lemoine escorted Nowden outside the theater and detained him until the
police arrived. Before officers arrived, Lemoine discovered that there were six
additional twenty-dollar bills hidden inside the wrapper of one of Nowden’s hot dogs.
3
The United States Secret Service later determined that the seven bills had been, in
fact, forged.
Nowden represented himself at trial and, in his closing jury argument, admitted
that he had possessed the forged bills: “I’m not denying it didn’t happen. I had the
bills. Did I know they was fake? No.” A jury found him guilty and assessed his
punishment at 80 years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(d), 32.21(e).
The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Nowden v. State, No. 07-12-
0037-CR, 2013 WL 1501786, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 11, 2013, pet. ref’d)
(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
B. THE POSTCONVICTION MOTIONS
On May 15, 2019, Nowden filed a postconviction motion for forensic DNA
testing, asking for DNA testing on the twenty-dollar bill he had given to the
concession employee and one of the bills found in the hot-dog wrapper because it
was reasonably probable that the results from those tests would establish his actual
innocence. The trial court denied the motion on August 12, 2019, and Nowden
voluntarily dismissed his appeal from that order.
1 Nowden v. State, No. 02-19-00314-
1Because we did not address the merits of the trial court’s denial of his first
motion, the law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar our consideration of Nowden’s
arguments in this appeal from the denial of his second similar motion. See, e.g., Willis
v. State, No. 02-20-00022-CR, 2020 WL 6165310, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct.
22, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
4
CR, 2020 WL 7253383, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 10, 2020, no pet. h.) (per
curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
On May 6, 2020, Nowden filed a second motion, again arguing that DNA
testing of the bill given to the concession employee and one of the other bills would
prove his actual innocence—he was not “the person who passed a counterfeit $20 bill
to the victim.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01(a-1), 64.03(a). The trial
court appointed counsel for Nowden. See id. art. 64.01(c). The State responded that it
had the bills in its possession; however, the State argued that Nowden had not met his
burden to show that he would not have been convicted if DNA results had been
exculpatory and that Nowden’s identity had not been at issue at trial. See id. arts.
64.01(c), 64.02(a). The State averred, therefore, that Nowden was not entitled to
forensic DNA testing. The trial court found that identity had not been an issue at
trial and that significant other evidence established Nowden’s guilt such that even if
the results of DNA testing of the bills were exculpatory, he would likely have been
convicted anyway. Accordingly, without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
denied Nowden’s second motion as it had the first. See id. art. 64.03(a)(1); see also
Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5, 8–9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (recognizing trial court
may deny DNA testing without holding evidentiary hearing).
5
II. PROPRIETY OF DENIAL OF
POSTCONVICTION DNA-TESTING MOTION
In his pro se appeal from the trial court’s denial, Nowden argues that it is
reasonably likely that the bills in question contained testable “touch DNA” that, if
exculpatory, would support his actual-innocence claim. He also contends that even
though his identity as the perpetrator was not an issue at trial, it “is currently an
issue.”
When a trial court rules on a motion for postconviction DNA testing without
conducting an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo. See
Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). A trial court may order
DNA testing only if it finds several statutory preconditions are met. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a); Holberg v. State, 425 S.W.3d 282, 284 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). As relevant here, identity must have been or is an issue in the case, and the
preponderance of the evidence must establish that Nowden would not have been
convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a)(1)(C), (2)(A). Nowden bore the burden to show
both. See id. art. 64.03(a); Brown v. State, No. 02-12-00263-CR, 2013 WL 2631173, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 13, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). We do not consider posttrial evidence when deciding whether or not
Nowden carried his burden to establish by a preponderance that he would not have
been convicted if exculpatory DNA evidence had been available. See Holberg,
6
425 S.W.3d at 285. In other words, we determine “whether, and to what extent,
exculpatory results from a DNA testing of the [bills] would alter the landscape if
added to the mix of evidence that was available at the time of trial.” Id.
At trial, Howard testified that Nowden gave him a twenty-dollar bill that was
forged. While Howard was testing the bill, Nowden acted nervous “like [he] knew
something was wrong with the bill,” asked for the bill back, asked if the bill “was fake
or not,” and tried to give Howard a different bill. Based on Nowden’s behavior,
Howard assumed that Nowden knew the bill was “fake.” Lemoine found six more
counterfeit twenty-dollar bills inside one of Nowden’s hot-dog wrappers. Nowden
admitted at trial that he gave Howard the twenty-dollar bill that was found to be
forged, but he asserted that he did not know it was forged.
Accordingly, even if the results of DNA testing of the bills had been
exculpatory—Nowden’s DNA would not have been found on the bills—Nowden has
not established by a preponderance that he would not have been convicted. It was
reasonably probable that others’ DNA would have been found on the bills because
Howard, Lemoine, and the assistant manager handled the bill Nowden attempted to
pay with and because Lemoine handled the bills found in the hot-dog wrapper, which
diminished any probative value the DNA evidence would have had. See, e.g., Dunning
v. State, 572 S.W.3d 685, 693–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019); Hall v. State, 569 S.W.3d 646,
658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019); Willis, 2020 WL 6165310, at *2–3. And DNA results
would not have been relevant to the disputed issue of whether Nowden knew the
7
twenty-dollar bills were forged and, thus, whether he had the intent to defraud
another. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(b); Holberg, 425 S.W.3d at 287–88. See
generally Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“Texas courts
have consistently held that a movant does not satisfy his burden under Article 64.03 if
the record contains other substantial evidence of guilt independent of that for which
the movant seeks DNA testing.”).
Outcome: We conclude that Nowden failed to establish by a preponderance that he would
not have been convicted if exculpatory DNA results from the bills had been available
at trial. In other words, exculpatory DNA results, even if added to the mix of
evidence introduced at trial, would not have altered the trial’s landscape. Thus, the
trial court did not err by denying Nowden’s second postconviction motion for such
testing. We overrule Nowden’s issue and affirm the trial court’s order. See Tex. R.
App. P. 43.2(a).
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: