NO. 07-06-0319-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY

4, 2007

______________________________ JEREMY LE CLEAR, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 242 ND DISTRIC T COURT O F SW ISHER COUN TY; NO. A-3966-05-08; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Jeremy LeClear was convicted of evading arrest or detention and contends that the evidence was factuall y insufficient to s upport the ve rdict. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t. The standard by

which w e review the factual sufficienc

y of the evi dence is set fort h in Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We refer the parties to that opinion.2

Next, a person commits an of fense if he in tent iona lly fl ees f rom a pers on he knows is a peace off icer attemptin g lawfull y to arr est or detain h im. T EX
. P EN
. C ODE A NN
. §38.04(a) (Ve rnon 2003) . Appellant ar gues that the ev idence wasfactually i nsufficient because it failed to es tablish the l egitimacy of the officer’s attempt to detain him. That is, his convictio n should be overturned because the of ficer allegedly lacked basis to detain him. We disagree. On July 21, 2005, around 4:00 a.m., a jailer for the Sw isher

County Sheriff’s Department

observed an individual (later determined to be app ellant) dressed in jeans, a leather jacket, and a motorcyclehelmet approach t he door of the jail building, look inside , and linger for

several minutes wi thout removi ng his helmet. The j ailer call ed Officer Randy Baker to return to the jail to i nvestig ate. When Baker arrived in his marked policevehicle, he observed appellant almost in the street

walking toward a motorcycle . Baker attempted to call in thelicense pla te number of the motorcy cle. However, the l ast two di gits of it had been covered in paint and intentionally altered, or so it appeared to the officer. When Bake r was ap proxi mat ely five fee t from appellant and t he motorcycl e, he yelled for appellant tostop. Instead, appellan t turned, looked at the of ficer, sped off, and
ran a stop sign. The officer co ntacted di spatch and began to pursue the spe eding motorcycl ist. At one point, Baker estimate d appellant’s speed to approxi mate 100 m.p.h. An officer may t emporarily detain an individ u al for further in vestig ation when he has spec ific articulabl e facts whic h combined wi th rational i nferences from those facts would lead an officer to r easonably su spect t hat a particular person has eng aged in or
soon will be engaged in criminal ac tivity

. Garcia v. St

ate, 43 S.W.3d 527, 53 0 (Tex . Cri m. App. 2001). The circumstance s that ra i se suspicion need not be cri minal in and of3

themselvesbut the c onduct must be sufficie ntly dis tinguishabl e from that of innocent people under the same circumstances to clear ly set thesuspect apart. Davis v. St ate, 947 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1997). Appellant’s 1) l ing eri ng i n fr ont o f a jail at 4 a.m., 2) being c lothed in a way that concealed his identit

y, 3) ri ding a motorc

ycle w ith an altered licence plate, 4) r unning a stop sign as he drov e away, and 5) speedi ng con stitu te some evidence of ar ticulable factsupon which a reasonable officer could deduce that app ellant had or w as engaged i n criminal conduct. Thus, Baker had reas onable suspici on justifyi ng his attempt to detain appell ant, and the evidenc e suppor ting that co nclusion was neither w eak nor outweighed by countervai ling ev idence. Accordingl y appellant’ s issue isoverrul ed, and the judg ment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice
Do not publish

.