Nathan Gene Collins v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00151-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00151-CR

NATHAN GENE COLLINS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 083186-D-CR, Honorable Steven Denny, Presiding

April 29, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Nathan Collins, was convicted by a jury

of unlawful possession of a firearm.1 The jury found the deadly weapon allegation and the

enhancement allegations to be true and assessed punishment at twenty-five years’

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Through a single issue,

Appellant challenges the trial court’s entry of an affirmative deadly weapon finding. We

affirm.

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04. BACKGROUND

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, only facts

necessary to disposition of his sole issue will be addressed.

Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under circumstances

that included the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon—namely, he fired a Glock multiple

times in the air across the Dumas Highway and towards Thompson Park and Wonderland

Park. On appeal, Appellant argues because the underlying offense was possession of a

firearm, the deadly weapon finding must be supported by proof of a separate and distinct

felony offense. He contends the evidence is insufficient because there was no additional

offense apart from the possession charge. We disagree.

ANALYSIS

Article 42A.054(c) authorizes a deadly weapon finding when it is shown that a

deadly weapon was used or exhibited during the commission of a felony offense. See

Jurado v. State, No. 07-97-00102-CR, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5335, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Aug. 25, 1998, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The deadly

weapon statute’s purpose “is to discourage and deter felons from taking and using deadly

weapons with them as they commit their crimes.” Plummer v. State, 410 S.W.3d 855,

864 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020).

The Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that “in order to ‘use’ a deadly

weapon for affirmative finding purposes, the weapon must be utilized to achieve an

intended result, namely, the commission of a felony offense separate and distinct from

‘mere’ possession.” Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Ex

Parte Petty, 833 S.W.2d 145, 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). More recently, however, the

2 Court has clarified that a deadly weapon finding requires only “some facilitation

connection between the weapon and” the associated felony. See Plummer, 410 S.W.3d

at 865. To that end, the Court suggests the weapon must “increase the risk of harm,”

“otherwise contribute to the result,” or play a role in “enabling, continuing, or enhancing”

the associated felony. Id.

In Jurado, this Court considered and rejected the very argument raised here,

holding that a defendant can be convicted of illegal weapon possession and

simultaneously subject to a deadly weapon finding—so long as the weapon is “used or

exhibited” during the commission of the possession offense itself. 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS

5335, at *2–3. This Court emphasized that mere possession is insufficient, but where the

weapon is employed in some manner, an affirmative finding is proper. Id.

Here, the record reflects Appellant did more than merely possess the firearm.

Evidence showed he fired a weapon at least twenty times over a highway. This

distinguishes his case from those in which the weapon was merely stored or hidden. See

Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (defining “use” broadly to

include any employment of the weapon in furtherance of the offense). Accordingly, the

trial court did not err in submitting the deadly weapon allegation to the jury, and the

evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Alex Yarbrough Justice

Do not publish. 3