## NO. 12-07-00308-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

MIC HAEL CLYD

E JO NE S, § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 2 41 ST APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Michae l Cly de Jones appeals from his c onviction f or evading arr est with a vehicle . I n one issue, he argue s th a t th e ve hic le he wa s d ri vin g wa s n ot a

de a dly we a po n. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND A citizen called the police afte r she he ard scre aming coming from Appellant’s c ar a nd observe d him striking his female passenge r s ev er al times. The citizen tried to follow Appellant’s c ar, but he drove a way at a hig h rate of spee d, and she could not keep up with him. I ndepende ntly , J ason Seaton,
an o ff icer with the Ty ler Police De partment, wa s driving home on US Highw ay 69 when he saw Appellant driving err atically and ca using othe r vehic les on the roa dway to take eva sive ac tion. Br ian Richards, a

City of B ullard police of

fice r, wa s dispatched in re sponse to the ca ll from the citizen. He located Appellant, still on Hig hway 69, and attempted to pull him over. Appe llant did not oblige

. The re sulting cha se wa s capture d on videotape a nd shows Appellant turning acr oss Highw ay 69, a four lane hig hway separ ated by a turn lane at that location, narrowly avoiding a motorcycle, a nd continuing on at a h i gh rate of spee d down one a nd two lane c ounty

roads. At one point, Appellant stopped h i s vehicle, a

nd a passe ng er g ot out. He continued his flig ht from the off icer , crossing the
c e nte r l ine on

se ve ra l oc c a sio ns , d isr e g ard ing a t le a st o ne sto p s ig n, and fi na lly a ba nd on ingthe ve hic leJ a c k so n v . V

irg in ia , 443 U

. S. 307, 99 S. Ct

. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 ( 1979) 1 2 at the end of

a dirt roa d. Appellant wa s char g ed with the state ja il felony offe nse of evading arr est with a vehicle. The indictment further

alleg ed that he ha d twice be fore been c o n v i ct ed of felony offe nses and that the vehicle he drove w as a de adly wea pon. The jury found hi m g uilty as cha rg ed. Appe llant admitted that he had pr eviously

been c onvicted of the felony offe nses, and the jury

found that Appe llant’s vehicle w as a dea dly wea pon. The jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for se venty –five y ear s. This appea l followed.

D E ADL Y W E AP ON F I NDI NG I n a sing le i s s u e, Appellant argues that the e vidence was fa ctually insufficient to support the fi nd ingthat hi s v e hic le wa s a de a dly we a po n. Spe c if

ic a lly , h e argue s th a t w hil e he tr a ve le d in e xce ss of 100 miles pe r hour and an office r testified that car s had to sw erve to a void him, t h er e w as not
s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t h a tan o t h e r p e r s o nw a s i nd an g e r

o f d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y. Stand ard of Review We reviewthe fa ctual sufficiency of the e vidence to determine w hether , consideringall the evidenc e in a ne utral l ight, the evidence supporting the conviction is too weak to withstand scr utiny or the g reat weig ht and prepondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the jury ’s ver dict to the extent that the verdic t is cl ea rl y

wrongand manife stly

unjust. See Wa tso n v

. St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414–15, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). I n doing so, we must fir st a ssume that the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt under the Ja c ks on v

. V irg inia standard. See Cle wis v . St ate , 922 S.W .2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 1 We t he n c on sid e r a ll o f t

he e vid e nc e that ten ds to pr ov e the e xiste nc e of the e le me nta l fa c t in dis pu te and compare it to the evidence that tends to disprove that fact. See Sant e lla n v . St ate , 939 S.W .2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Our r ole is that of

a pp e llate re vie w, and

the fa c t f ind e r i s th e jud g e of the we ig ht a nd c re dib ili ty
o f a w i t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y. We

sb ro ok v . St ate , 29 S.W .3d 103, 111–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The fa ct f i n d e r m ay c h o o s e t o b e l i e v e a l l , s o m e , o r n o n e o f a w i t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y. Shar p v . St ate , 707 S.W .2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). When we re view the f actua l s u ff

iciency of the e vidence , we a

re authorized to disag ree with the jury ’s deter mination, e ven if probative evidenc e exis ts that supports the3

verdic t. See Cle wis , 922 S.W .2d at 133. B ut our eva luation should not subs tantially intrude upon the jury ’s role as t he judge of the weight and cre dibilit y of witness testimony

. See Sant ellan , 939 S.W .2d at 164. Appli cable Law A dea dly wea pon is “a fir ear

m or any thing manif

estly des i gn ed , m ade, or

adapte d for the purp os e of

inf lic tin g de a th or se ri ou s b od ily inj ur y ” a s w e ll a s “ any

thi ngthat in

the mann e r o f i ts u se or intended use is capa ble of c ausing death or serious bodily i n

j u ry .” T EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.07(a) (17)( A), (B ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). “Serious bodily injury ” is bodily

injury that “cr eate s a substantial risk of de ath or that cause s death, serious perma nent disfig ureme nt, or protra cted loss or impairment of the f

unction of any

bodily member or

org an.” Id . § 1.07(a) (46). A motor vehicle may

be a deadly wea

pon depending on the circ umstances surr ounding its use. Dric has v . St ate , 17 5 S.W. 3d

79 5, 79 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Ex parte McKith an , 838 S.W .2d 560, 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Howeve r, not eve ry vehicle use d to eva d e ar re s t i s a dea dly wea pon. Drichas , 1 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d

at 7 9 9 (“ W e d o n o t s u gges tt h at a d ef en d an ts h o u l d

b e c h ar gedwi t h u s i n g a vehicle a s a dea dly

wea pon ever y time the offe nse of e vading arr est or dete ntion is commi tted.”). I nstead, to sustain the finding , there must be evidence to show that the vehicle was c apable of ca using death or serious bodily

injury to another pe rson. Id

. (c i t i n g Wil lia ms v. Sta te , 946 S.W .2d 432, 435–36 (Tex. App.–For

t Worth 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds , 970 S.W .2d 566 (Tex

. C ri m. App. 1998)). This ca

pabilit y can be shown if “ther e wa s someone pre sent who wa s place d in dang er of serious bodily

injury or death.” W

i l l ia ms , 946 S.W .2d at 435. Ana lys is Th e jur y wa s ask e d dur ingthe punis hme nt p ha se of the tr ia l w he the r A

pp e lla nt u se d a de a dly
wea pon. See Lefle ur v

. St ate , 1 0 6 S. W. 3 d

9 1 , 9 4

– 9 6 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 3 )

. T h e ju r y f o u n d th at Appellant used a

deadly wea pon, and the tria l court re cor d ed t h at finding in the judgme nt. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . arts. 42.01(21) (Ve rnon 2005), 42.12 § 3g (a) (2) ( Ver non Supp. 2007). There was ampl e e vid e nc e of bo th hy po the tic a l and

a c tua l da ng e r c re a te d b y

Ap pe lla nt’ s u se of the ve hicle. While fleeing fr o m t h e police, a t speeds that re ache d 100 miles per hour, A ppellant
crosse d into the oncoming la nes o f traf

fic a round blind curve s and paid no he ed to traf fic c ontrolT he Stat e d o es not argue t hat A p p el l ant ’ s p ass enger or t he p o l i ce o f f i cer was put at ri sk. 2 4 measure s. There wer e not ca rs in Appellant’s path when he d i d t h es e thi ng s, and so these a re hy po the tic a l da

ng e rs . See Ol

iv as v . St ate , 2 02 S.W. 3d

13 7, 14 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Cate s v. 2 Sta te , 102 S.W .3d 735, 738–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). But ther e wa s also actua l dang er to other people. At the beginning of the c hase, A ppellant beg an to mo v e i n t o t h e ce nter turninglane, only to move back into his own lane to avoid a collision with a truck. When he crosse d Hig hway 69 moments later, Appe llant narrow ly missed a motorcy cle. Othe r traff ic was onc oming, a

nd Appellant took the turn so quickly that he almost lost control of his vehicle. The pursuit then moved to c ounty roads whe re A ppellant over

took at least one ve hicle, and a nother ha d to m ov e int o a dr ive wa

y to g e t ou t of his wa

y . H e a lso e nc ounte re d s e ve ra l on c omi ngve hic le s w hil e trave ling at a high rate of speed and not ke eping solely to his own lane. Fur therm o re , h i s p as s eng er testified that Appellant let he r out of the c ar f or her own safe ty

. Ap pe lla nt’ s v e hic le , in

the wa y he us e d it , w a s c a

pa ble of c a us ingse ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y or de a th to the motorists he passed, drove around, or darte d betwee n as he soug ht to elude the police. The jury hear d the testimony

of the off

icer s and viewe d a videotape o f t he pursuit. Their de termination that Ap pe lla nt’ s v e hic le , in

the wa y it w a s u se d, wa s a de a dly we a po n is su pp or te d by the e vid e nc e a nd

is not clear ly

wrongor manife stly

unjust. W e over

rule Appe llant’s sole issue.

D I S P OS I T I ON Havingoverr

uled Appellant’ s sole issue, we af fi rm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. 

### BRIAN HO Y LE J ustice Opinion delivere d J uly

23, 2008. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J. (DO N OT PUBL I SH)