Tex. Transp. Code § 545.421(a ). 1 Tex. P en. Code § 38.04(a ), (b) (1). 2 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS

NO. P D-1984-06

QU AN ELL X

AB DU L F ARRA KHA N, App e lla nt

v . THE S TATE O F TEXAS ON STA TE ’S P ETIT ION F OR DI SCRETIO NA RYRE VI EW IN CA USE NO . 0 1- 04 -0 12 05 -C R F RO M THE F IR S T C OU RT OF AP P EA LS HA RRIS CO UN TY H O L C O MB , J., de liv e re d th eop inio n of the Cour t, in whic h M E YE RS , W OM ACK , J OHN S ON , and C OCH RAN , JJ., joined. K ELLER , P .J., P RI CE , K EASLER , H ERV EY , JJ., concurred. O P I N I O N I n this case, we m u s t deter mine whether

the cour t of appe als err ed in holding that the misdemeanor of

fense of flee ing is not a lesser- included off ense o f the fe lony

offe nse of e vading 1 de te nti on wi th a mot or ve hic le

. We a ff

ir m. 2FARRAKHA N - Pag e 2

The fa cts of this case are not pertinent to the leg al issue bef ore us. We adopt the c ourt of 3 appea ls’ opinion to present the followinginformation to the intere sted rea der. See F arrakhan v. Sta te , N o . 0 1

- 0 4

- 0 1 2 0 5

- CR , 2 0 0 6 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 1 0 3 1 7 , a t * 2

- 8 ( T e x. A p p . — H o u s to n[1 st Dist.] Nov. 30, 2006). On June 9, 2002, Der rick F orney

shot a Houston Police Depa rtment (HPD) of fice r. The H PD searc hed for For ney , but to no avail. Two year s later, a ppellant Quane ll X Abdul Far

rakha n, a community

activist, arr ang ed with the HPD to bringFor ney to the HPD’s Tra

vis headqua

rters on June 11, 2004. Appellant had a ssisted the HPD with the peac eful surre nder of

at least 15 suspec ts in the past. The ar rang ement for

bring ing in F orney

was consistent with that insti tuted by a prior c hief of police for a ppellant to bring in such suspects. But ther e wa s a bre akdown in communication in thi s case beca use the proc edure had neve r bee n written down, the c urre nt chief of police wa s out of town, and both McClelland (the actingchief of police) and De tective Abbonda ndolo (of HPD’s homicide division and the le ad dete ctive on For ney ’s ca se) we re una

war e of the proce dure. Detec tive Abbondandolo, ac companied by a par tner, a rrived at the desig nated inter section in an unmarke d police vehic le. He le d eig ht other off icer s in four unmarke d police vehic les. The detec tive decide d to “just follow” appe llant’s vehicle to e nsure that he drove to the Tr avis police headqua rters. B ut he bec ame c oncer ned whe n appellant se emed to be dr iving a way from the headqua rters a nd towards a

n are a whe re F orney ’s ac quaintance s were known to reside. H e started r adioing patrol units and the off icer s he wa s leadingfor a ssistance. B ut then, appellant made a n abrupt u-tur

n over a concr ete media

n and starte d to head ba ck towar ds the hea dquarte rs. The de tective still felt conce rned, how ever , and his partne r sig naled to an of fice r in a mar

ked patr ol u nit , w hic h h a

pp e ne d to be pa ssi ngby , to sto p a pp e lla nt’ s v e hic le . T he le a d d e te c tiv e a lso t ri edt o co n t ac tt h at o ff

i ce r o v er t h e r ad i o b u t , u nb ek n o wn s tt o h i m , t h e o ff i ce r w as u s i n g a dif fe re nt r a dio fr e qu e nc y . T hu s, the of fi c e r h a d n o id e a

wh a t w a s g oin g on

a s h e de sp e rate ly tried to stop appellant by

turning on his lights and ac tivating his siren “ sever al times.” I t is undisput ed that appe llant did not ex cee d the spee d limit nor drive e rratically , that he had his flashe rs on for a

t least some of the time, a nd that he continued slowly in the g ener al direc tion of the police he adquar ters. I t is also undisput ed that appe llant tried to contac t the police chief and wa s connec ted to McClelland, the ac ting c hief. Appe llant was said to be ve ry excited as he told McClelland that he was try ing to br ing in the suspe ct but that “trig g er ha ppy killer cops” w ere “all over

him,” that they

wer e “g oing to c reate an incide nt,” and that “ this was not part of the deal.” Acc ording to an offic er’ s testimony , McClelland told appellant to slow down his vehicle a

nd “to kee p coming ,” but neve r expressly told appellant to stop or to pull over, eve n though he hear d a continuous police sire n in the backg round duringappellant’ s call. Instead, McClelland told appellant that he “ would find out what off icer s were following him and g ive them instructions to allow him t o peac efully surre nder at the” Tra

vis headqua

rters. Mc Clelland then tried to do just that but the office rs stopped appe llant before he could c ontact them. F orney was a rre sted without incident and, appa rently later that day , appellant wa s also arr ested for (continued...) Back ground

3FARRAKHA N - Pag e 3

(...continued) 3 evadingarr est or dete ction.

See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a rt. 37.14: 4 I f a de fenda

n t , p rosec uted for a

n offe nse which inc ludes within it l esser offe nses, be c onvicted of a n offe nse lower

than that for which he is indicted, and a new tria l be g rante d him, or the judg ment be arre s t ed fo r any cause other than the want of jurisdiction, the ve rdict upon the fir st trial shall be con s i d er ed an acquittal of the hig her of

fense

. The c ourt of appe als rea soned: 5 Although appellant objected to the submissi on of the lesser- included off ense be fore the jur y wa s c ha rg e d, he did

no t do so on the ba sis that we have a dd re sse d ( the fi rs t (continued...) Appellant wa s indicted for the state felony offe nse of evading detention by the use of a

motor vehicle. O n November

15, 2004, he wa s tried befor e a Har ris County petit jur

y . At the close of the evidenc e, at the State’s reque st a nd over appellant’ s objection, the trial court char g ed the jury on the mis de me ano r o ff

e ns e of fl e e ing or a tte mpt ing to el ud e a po lic e of fi c e r a s a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of e va din g de te nti on . T he jur y c on vic te d a

pp e lla nt o f t he le sse r o ff

e ns e of fl e e ing , th

us imp lic itl y acquitting him of the g reater off ense of evadingdetention. 4 On direc t a

ppeal, appellant r aised four issues, only

one of w hich is releva

nt to our review : that the trial cour

t erre d when it cha

rg ed the jury

on the alleg edly

lesser- included off

ense of flee ing

or a tte mpt ing to e lud e a po lic e of fi c e r. Th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls, re lyingpr ima

ri ly on our d e c isi on s in Jaco b v. Sta te , 892 S.W .2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), and Ha y war d v . S tate , 1 5 8 S. W. 3 d

476 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 2 005), held that the tria l court er red in c harg ing the jury

on the lesser -included offe nse. Farrakhan , 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S at *52. The cour t t h en ap p l i ed the eg reg ious-harm standard of Al

ma nz a v . S

tate , 686 S.W .2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), and held that a ppellant had 5FARRAKHA N - Pag e 4

(...continued) 5 step of the [ Ro us se au v . S tate , 855 S.W .2d 666 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1993)] lesserincluded-of

fense test, which he r aised for the fi rst time after

trial), ar g uing instea d that no evidenc e showe d commission of only the lesser -included of

fense (the sec ond step of the Rousseau lesser- i ncluded- offe nse test). Ac cording ly , we r eview f or e g re g iou s h arm . Farrakhan , 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S at *52-53. We note that we ha d also g rante d revie w on two other issues: (1) whether the cour t of 6 appea ls erre d in holding that this Court’s opinion in Cun nin gh am v . S tate , 7 2 6 S. W. 2 d

1 5 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1987), ca

nnot be re conciled w ith its opinions in Jacob and Ha y war d ; and (2) whether the cour t of appe als err ed in dec lining to follow W alk e r v . S tate , 9 5 S. W. 3 d

5 1 6 ( T e x. Ap p. — F or

t Wor th 2 00 2, pe t. r e f’ d) , in

wh ic h th e F or

t Wor th c ourt of a pp e a ls h a d e xpre ssl y

he ld that flee ing or

attempting to e lude a police office r wa s a lesser -included of fense of eva ding a

rre st. The State c oncede s, howeve r, that in light of this Court’s dec ision in Ha ll v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), which “e x pressly disapproved of Cunningham and other case s e mp l o yi n g a

c o g n a t e e v i d e n c e m o d e o f an a l ys i s , ” w h i c h w a s a l s o e mp l o ye d b y W alker , the cour

t of appe als did not err in these respe cts. State’s B rief at 21 n.12. See also id. at 12 n.8. be e n harm e d by the tr ia l court ’s e rr or be c a us e “ [t[he jur

y a c qu itt e d ap pe lla

nt of the c ha rg e d o ff e ns e and convic ted him of an off ense w ith which the jury

should not have bee n cha rge d b ec ause that offe nse was not a lesser -included of fense .” Farrakhan , 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S at *54. I t theref ore

re ve rs e d th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ourt

and re mand e d th e c a

us e to th at court

wi th i ns tr

uc tio ns to dismiss the indictment. Id. at *54-55. We gr anted r eview to c onsider the f ollowing issues: (1) can the offe nse of f leeingor

a tt e mp ti n g to e lude a police office r, under Transpor tation Code Section 545.421, be a le sser-inc luded of fe ns e of e va din g de te nti on , und e r P e na l Code Se c tio n 38. 04 ; and (2 ) wh e the r the c ourt of a pp e a ls

e rr e d in ho ldi ngtha

t f le e ingor a tte mpt ing to el ud e a

po lic e of fi c e r w a s n ot a

le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of eva ding de tention in this case and that the tr i al co u rt there fore should not have submitted an i n s t ru ct i o nau t h o ri z i n g t h e j u ry t o co n v i ct ap p el l an to f f

l ee i n g. 6 DiscussionFARRAKHA N - Pag e 5 The State conce des that in lig ht of this Court’s de cision in Ha ll , muc h of the c ourt of a pp e a ls’

ana ly sis wa s c or

re c t. S tate ’s B ri e f a

t 10 . Sp e c if

ic a lly , th e State c on c e de s th a t th e c ourt of a pp e a ls was “ clea rly corr ect in holding that courts should compar e the e lements of the lesse r off ense to the elements of the g reater off ense a s m o d i fi ed by

the cha rg ing instrument.” Id. a t 12 . I t argue s, howeve r, that while Ha ll

clar ified what

sh ou ld b e c omp are d in

de te rm ini ngwh e the r an of fe ns e is t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d

o f f e n s e o f t h e c h ar g e d o f

f e n s e , i td o e s n o tc l ar i f

y how the compar ison should be made. Id. at 13. In the re st of its brief then, the State sug g ests that we ad o p t t h e l an g uag e of the Jacob court a

nd require the cour

ts to “examine the elements of t he lesser offe nse and de cide whe ther they are ‘ functionally thesame or less than those r equire d to prove the c harg ed off ense.’ ” Id. (citing Jacob , 8 92 S .W .2 d at 90 8 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ). Th e State a dmi ts t hat th is C ourt

did no t di sc us s functional e quivalence in Ha ll , but argues that “the re is no re ason to aba ndon this pa

rt of the Jacob

an aly sis.” Id. a t 2 0 n . 1 1

. I t c la im s th a t “ [s ]i n c e th e qu e s ti o n o f f u n c ti o n a l e qu iv a le n c e ca n be de te rm ine d pr ior to tr ia l wi th re fe re nc e on ly to the re le va nt statut e s and the c ha

rg ingin str

ume nt, none of the constitutional noti ce issues that conce rned the Court are in play .” Id. B ut i n atte mpt ingto s ho w “ Ho w a nd Why Mis de me ano r F le e ingis a L e sse r I nc lud e d O ff

e ns e of EvadingDetention in thi s Case,” id. at 14 (e mphasis added) , t h e S tate g oes on to discuss the evidenc e it presented at trial. See id. at 15-17. Ba sed on this discussion, the State conclude s, “Since the e sse nti a l di ff

e re nc e in the c on te xt of

the ple a din g s in

thi s c a se is that th e mis de me ano r o ff e ns e did not require proof of

flig ht, while the fe lony

offe nse did, proof of

the lesser was made by

proof of fa c ts fun c tio na lly th e s a me o r le s s th an th o s e r e qu ir e d to p r o v e th e le s s e r [si c].” Id. at 17 (empha sis added). The State then g oes on to showsuch func tional equivalenc e by , ag ain, re fer ringFARRAKHA N - Pag e 6

See, e .g., State’s B rief at 19: 7 Proof that a uniformed

police off

icer at t em p t ed to stop a per son by using the e me rg e nc ylig hts and siren of

his officially marked policecar as is g ener ally

require d under the Transpor

tation Code is functionally equivalent to proof

that the office r wa s attempting to de tain the person and that the person knew he was a police off

icer who wa s at t em p t i n g t o d et ai nh i m as t h e S t at e m u s tes t ab l i s h t o p ro v e f el o n y ev ad i n g. (Emphasis adde d.) The f

acts e mphasized above re prese nt the evidenc e pre sented at trial and do not even a ppear in the indictment which simply alleg ed: The duly org anized Gra

nd J ury of Ha rris County , T ex as , prese nts in the District Court of Har

ris County , Texas, that in Harr is County , Texas, QUANEL LX AB DUL FARRAKHA

N, her eaf ter styled the De fen d a

nt, h e r e tofore on or

about J une 11, 2004, did then and there unlawfully , intentionally flee from K.E. ROY, he rea fter styled the Complainant, a pea ce of

fice r employ ed by

HOUSTON POL I CE D E P AR T M ENT, lawfully attempting to DE TAI

N the De fenda

nt, and the De fenda

nt knew that the Complainant was a pe ace office r attempti n g t o DETAI N the De fenda

nt, and the De fe nd ant u se d a

mot or ve hic le wh ile he wa s in

fl ig ht. We note that article 37.09, of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, the statutory 8 pr ov isi on on le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s, su pp or ts o ur c on c lus ion

in t he pr e se nt c a se . T he statut e states that an of

fense is a lesser- included off ense if “ it is established by proof of thesa meor

le ss than a ll the fa c ts r e qu ir e d to e sta bli shthe c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e c ha rg e d. ” Te x. Cod e Cr im. Proc. ar t. 37.09(1) (e mphasis added)

. to t he fa c ts p re se nte d at tr ia l. 7 Thus, the State appea

rs to be trying to br ing in those fac ts throug h the back door , so to speak, even thoug h we ha d clea

rly stated in Ha ll

that such fac ts w ere not to be conside red in the f irst step of the lesse r-include d-off ense a naly ses. 225 S.W.3d at 536 (“Applying the first step of the le sser included-of

fense [si c] analy sis . . . , we do not consider the evidenc e that wa s prese nted at trial.” ). I t is only afte r the a lleg ed lesser

offe nse passe s the scrutiny under the first step of the a naly sis that

we then proce ed to the second step of “dete rmining w hether

the evidenc e at tria l supports giving one of [the] prede termined lesse r-include d offe nse instructions.” Id. at 531. As we note d in Ha ll , 8 To hold otherwise w ould be contra ry to the better a

naly sis of the statute and mig ht run af oul of the re quirements of due proce ss by making it impos sible to know befor eFARRAKHA N - Pag e 7 tr ia l w hat le sse r o ff

e ns e s are inc lud e d w ith in t he ind ic tme nt, y e t makin g it p os sib le at the end of

the trial to convict for

any offe nse that wa s i n ci dentally shown by

the evidenc e. 225 S.W .3d at 5 3 7

. Nothing in the Jacob court’s use of the func tional-equivale nce c oncept wa s contra ry to the l esser -included- offe nse analy sis that we clear ly delineate d in Ha ll , which is made by

c omp ari so n o f t

he e le me nts of

the of fe ns e s w ith ou t r e fe re nc e to t he e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tr ia l. Conclusion The c o u rt o f a

p p e a ls d e te r

mi n e d th a t f

le e in g w a s n o t a le s s e r - in c lu d e d o f f e n s e o f eva ding detention as the latter was char g ed in the prese nt c ase. When it used t h e t er m “f u nctional equivalenc e,” the court e mploy ed the same two-step method of conductingsuch lesser -includedoffe nse ana ly ses in its opini on that we de scribed in Ha ll sh or tly the re a ft e r. Thus , it re a c he d th e same

re su lt that Ha ll

wo uld have mand a te d. We, the re fo re , a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

hat c ourt

.

DEL I VERED: MARCH 12, 2008. PUB L I SH