### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 19 -C R

______________________________ ADRI AN L EE PI CKI

NGS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the County Court at L aw Bow ie County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 08 M0 71 2- CCL

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON A jury found Adrian L ee Pickings g uilty of the misdemeanor offe nse of inter fer ing w ith the d u ti e s o f a p u

b li c servant. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 38.15 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The punishment assessed wa s a fine of $2,000.00. I n this appeal, Picki ng s alleg es that a va rianc e betwee n the cha

rg ing instrument and the evidenc e require s a finding that the evidenc e is leg ally and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ve rd ic t. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. I. F acts J ay Hedg es, an of

fice r with the Hooks Police Depa rtment, was patrolling on the e vening of Fe bruar y 9, 2008, when he observe d a vehicle in which the driver failed to sig nal an intention to turn within 100 feet of an intersec tion. For this tra ffic offe nse, Hedg es stopped the vehic le, which wa s being driven by

Adrian' s mother, Hazel Picking s, and in which Adr ian was a passeng er. The occupa nts of the vehicle (Ha zel, Adrian, and an unknown third party ) emer g ed from the vehicle a nd ref used He dg es' direc tion to remain seate d in the vehicle. H azel ref used t o provide He dg es her dri v er 's l i ce n s e i n fo rm at i o n , an d Ad ri an t o l d He d ges h e d i d

n o th av e t o p ro v i d e am

— f— t h i n g. He dg e s th e n c a lle d f

or a ssi sta nc e fr om o the r o ff

ic e rs . B y tha t ti me , Haz el was c ur sin g He dg e s; neig hbors hea

ring the commotion beg an to gather

. Hedg es t hen st ated, "I told her she is [was] going to be p lac ed u nd er arre st for di so rder ly

con du ct. " Q. So, y ou

de c ide d to arr e st M s. Pic kin g s? A. Ye s, ma ' a m.3

About that same time, Off icer Rickey Steward arr ived on the scene and attempted to put handcuff s on Hazel when Adrian stepped in front of Stewa rd, extended his arm, a

nd said that she would not be arr ested. Hedg es then g rabbe d Adrian by the arm and told him he was under ar re s t for interfe renc e with a public se rvant' s duties. II. Variance The infor mation alleg ed that Adr ian did then and ther e while Of

fice r He dg es, a p eace of fice r, wa s perf

orming a duty

or e xer c isi nga

uth or ity imp os e d o r g ra

nte d b y law, to wit : A TT EM PTI NGTO EF F ECT ANARRES T, wi th c ri min a l ne g lig e nc e , in te rr up t, d isr up t, imp e de or int e rf

e re wi th th e s a id O F F I CE R H E D G E S b y ST E PP I N G I N F RO N T O F T H E O F F I CE R AS OFF I CER W AS ATTEMPTI NG TO EF FECT ANARREST. I n this appeal, Adr ian conc edes that he interfe red w ith St ew ar d 's eff orts to arre st his mot her, but denies he interfe red w ith Hedg es while he was e x erc ising his authority imposed or g rante d by

law. He c ontends that this varia nce betwee n the allegations in the charg ing instrument a nd the evidenc e at t ri al co n s t i tu t es a m at er i al v ar i an ce t h at re n d er s t h e e v i d en ce i n s u ff i ci en tt o s u s t ai nt h e j u ry 's verdic t. We disagr ee. A p e rs on c omm its an o ff

e ns e if the pe rs on , w ithc ri min a l ne g lig e nc e , i nt e rr up ts, dis ru

pts , impedes or other

wise interf

ere s with a pea ce of

fice r whil e the peac e off

icer is perfor ming a duty or exercising authority

imposed or g rante d by

law. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 38.15. I t is undisput ed that He dg es wa s a pea ce of fice r per formin g a duty

or authority

g rante d by law at the time in question and that Adrian interfe red with the arr est of his mother. The only issue4

prese nted is whether

such actions only interfe red with Steward rather than Hedg es' perf

ormanc e of such duty

. Hedg es wa s the pea ce of

fice r who stopped the vehicle that Hazel was driving a nd in which Adrian w as a pa sseng er. A fter the ir ref usal to prese nt their driver ' s licenses, H ed ges asked f or additional assistance

. Ba sed on her actions, He dg es advised H azel that she would be pla ced unde r
arr est for disorde rly

conduct. The backup of

fice r attempted to place the handcuffs on Hazel when Ad ri an p re ve nte d s uc h a c tio n unti l he wa s a rr e ste d b y He dg e s. The a ction that constitutes criminal conduc t in thi s s t atut e is interrupting , disrupting, or impeding the peac e off

icer doing his duties, one of which includes the a uthority to arre st. Hedg es was the of

fice r who ha d observe d all of the events that evening , including the ref usal of Ha zel and Adrian to obe y

the command to re main in the vehicle a nd to provide identification, cursing the office r, and the g ather ing of others watching this dist urbanc e. B ased on the se fa cts, Hedg es advised Hazel that she would be pla ced unde r ar rest, and Stewa

rd then attempted to take her into custody

by placinghandcuf

fs on her when Adr ian interfe red. The g rava men of the of

fense is the interfe renc e with Hedg es' perf

orming of a duty

or his authority g rante d by law. I t does not matter f or purpose s of cri min a l li a

bil ity ho w A dr ian d id i t so lon g a s th e e ff e c t of Ad ri an' s c on du c t in te rf

e re d w ith He dg e s' pe rf

or manc e of his lawf

ul du tie s. Th e iss ue is w he the r P ic kin g s' a c tio ns imp e de d H e dg e s'
a t t e mp tt o e f

f e c tanar r e s t
. T h e p r e c i s e m an n e r t h a tP i c k i n g s u s e d

t o a c c o mp l i s h t h i s i s s i mp l y aI n this case, the manner or means alleg ed was "by stepping in f ront of the of

fice r as of fice r 1 w a s a t t e mp t i n g t o e f

f e c ta n ar r e s t
. " G e n e r a l l y, a dv e r

b i a l p h r a s e s , i n t r o d

u c e d b y t h e p r e p o s i t i o n" b y" descr ibe the manne r and means of committing the offe nse. They are not the g rava

men of the offe nse. Stu hle r v . S

tate , 218 S.W .3d 706, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

.

5 manner or mea ns and is not the g rava

men of the of

fense

. W h et h er Ad ri an steppe d in front of

1 Offic er Stewa

rd rather than O ffice r He dg es is not the i mportant consideration; whether such ac tion impeded Hedg es' announce d intention to effec t an ar rest of H azel is the issue. Even thoug h it was Ste wa rd wh o a c tua lly

a tte mpt e d to pla c e the ha

nd c uf fs on Ha zel wh e n the int e rf

e re nc e oc c ur

re d, thi s
a c tio n im pe de d a nd in ter fered wi th t

he lawf ul d uty that H e dg e s h a d a lr e a dy

e xpre sse d—

to a rr e st Hazel. Only

Hedg es had the fac tual information that supported the dec i s i o n to arre st; he was the initial officer

on the sce ne and w as the only office r with persona l knowledg e of a viol ation of the law which would author ize the arr est. Steward was m ere ly assisting in t he ar rest that He dg es had a lrea dy

ann ounc e d. Th e e vid e nc e su pp or ts the jur y fi nd ing that Ad

ri an' s a c tio ns imp e de d or int e rf e re d w ith Hedg es' attempt to effe ct an a rre st of Haz el

. W e fi nd that the evidenc e does not show a varia nce betwee n the cha

rg ing instrument a

nd the evidenc e pre sented. The point of err or is overr uled. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

J ack Ca

rter J ustice Date Submitted: October 16, 2008 Date D ecide d: November 12, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh