The Eleventh Court of Appeals in Texas has affirmed the conviction of Nike Lee Johnson on charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The ruling, issued on November 14, 2025, addressed three key issues raised by Johnson in his appeal.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on April 7, 2021, where Johnson was accused of shooting Andrew Amoyaw. The prosecution alleged that Johnson, using a black ski mask and an AR-15 rifle, confronted Amoyaw. Amoyaw was shot in the arm and back while fleeing. The incident occurred after Amoyaw had exchanged messages with Claudia Perez, who Johnson was in a relationship with. Johnson used Perez’s phone to communicate with Amoyaw and lure him to a location where the shooting took place.
A jury found Johnson guilty of both aggravated robbery (Count One) and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count Two). He received sentences of ten and twenty years in prison, respectively, to be served concurrently.
Issues Raised on Appeal
Johnson’s appeal presented three main arguments:
* That the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.
* That the trial court erred in denying his request for funds to hire a DNA expert.
* That he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Analysis of the Court’s Decision
The appeals court systematically addressed each of Johnson’s claims:
Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict
Johnson’s first argument centered on the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. He claimed the State did not adequately prove he was the individual who committed the crimes. Specifically, he argued the case hinged on the testimony of Claudia Perez, who he claimed was an accomplice, and that there wasn’t enough other evidence to corroborate her testimony, as required by law.
The appeals court rejected this argument. It determined that there was sufficient non-accomplice evidence to corroborate Perez’s testimony. The court highlighted that Perez identified Johnson as the shooter and that her account was corroborated by Amoyaw’s testimony and the discovery of a black hoodie at the crime scene that contained Johnson’s DNA. The court noted that a jury could reasonably infer Johnson’s guilt from the totality of the evidence.
Request for Funds for a DNA Expert
Johnson’s second issue involved the trial court’s denial of his request for funds to hire a DNA expert. The appeals court sided with the State and found that Johnson had failed to preserve this issue for appeal. The court reasoned that Johnson’s arguments on appeal did not align with his objections made during the trial. The appeals court also noted that Johnson did not obtain a ruling from the trial court on his motion for expert witness funds, nor did he object to the court’s failure to rule.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Johnson’s final argument claimed that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance, primarily by failing to secure a DNA expert and failing to object to the introduction of DNA evidence.
The appeals court found this argument unpersuasive. The court emphasized that the record did not fully explain the attorney’s actions or strategic decisions, making it difficult to determine whether the representation fell below acceptable standards. The court also pointed out that Johnson’s trial counsel did challenge the State’s DNA evidence and that the record did not show that a different outcome would have resulted had a DNA expert been retained. The court also noted that Johnson failed to show that his trial counsel’s actions were so outrageous that no competent attorney would have acted in the same way.
Conclusion
The Eleventh Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgments. The court found that the evidence supported the jury’s verdicts and that Johnson’s claims of error were either without merit or not properly preserved for appeal.