NO. PD-1473-14

IN THE 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

WILLIAM BRYAN FINLEY, III § APPELLANT

vs. §

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS 

CASE NUMBER 03-13-00015-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS 

CAUSE NUMBER 11-01764-2 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS 

CHRISTOPHER M. PERRI

 Chris Perri Law 

 1504 West Ave. 

 Austin, Texas 78701 

 (512) 917-4378 

 Fax No. (512) 474-8252 

 chris@chrisperrilaw.com 

 State Bar No. 24047769 

 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

PD-1473-14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/15/2015 11:32:13 AM

Accepted 4/15/2015 12:38:35 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
i

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

APPELLANT William Bryan Finley, III

(Defendant in the Trial Court)

 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Christopher M. Perri

IN THE APPELLATE COURTS 1504 West Ave.

Austin, Texas 78701

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Jack Webernick

IN THE TRIAL COURT 120 W. 8th St.

Georgetown, Texas 78626-5852

APPELLEE The State of Texas

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Doyle “Dee” Hobbs, Jr.

Williamson County Attorney

405 M.L.K., Suite 240

Georgetown, Texas 78626

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Trey Thompson

IN THE TRIAL COURT Assistant Williamson County Attorney

405 M.L.K., Suite 240

Georgetown, Texas 78626

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE James LaMarca

IN THE APPELLATE COURTS Assistant Williamson County Attorney

405 M.L.K., Suite 240

Georgetown, Texas 78626
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................................................ i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................v

ISSUE PRESENTED............................................................................................... vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................11

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES......................................................................11

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL 

COURT’S VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE RESISTING ARREST 

CHARGE.......................................................................................................11

A. Evidence of non-cooperation is not sufficient to establish 

Resisting Arrest because the statute requires that the defendant use 

force against the arresting officer.................................... .....12

B. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, 

Appellant’s non-cooperative conduct cannot be deemed Resisting 

Arrest because there was no evidence that he used force against the 

officers........................................................................21

PRAYER..................................................................................................................24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................26
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Anderson v. State, 707 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.)

..............................................................................................................................17

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)......................................12

Bryant v. State, 923 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, pet. ref’d)............ 18, 22

Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)........................... 13-14, 18

Finley v. State, 449 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. granted)..............18

Hopper v. State, 86 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.) ....................15

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)................................................................12

Leos v. State, 880 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994, no pet.)............16

Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) ..........................................12

Pumphrey v. State, 245 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. ref’d).. 18-20

Raymond v. State, 640 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1982, no pet.)......... 15, 17

Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004)............................................12

Sartain v. State, 228 S.W.3d 416, 425 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d).13

Sheehan v. State, 201 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.).............. 16-18

Thompson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)...................................21

Torres v. State, 103 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.)............13

Washington v. State, 525 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ........................ 14-15
iv

Statutes

TEX. P. CODE §38.03 .................................................................................... 11-13, 15

TEX. P. CODE §38.04 .............................................................................. 14-15, 19, 22

TEX. P. CODE §38.05 ................................................................................................23
v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: On March 14, 2011, the Williamson County 

Attorney filed an information alleging that 

Appellant committed the offense of 

Resisting Arrest on or about March 5, 2011. 

CR 6. 

Course of Proceedings: A bench trial ensued from August 31 to 

September 1, 2012. RR I 3-5. Appellant was 

tried for Resisting Arrest and Hindering 

Apprehension (trial court cause number 11-

01763-2), which allegedly arose out of the 

same incident. RR II 7-8. Four witnesses 

testified for the State, and four witnesses 

testified for the defense. RR I 3-4. The trial 

court acquitted Appellant on the Hindering

Apprehension charge, but it found him 

guilty of Resisting Arrest. RR IV 5-6, CR 

46. 

Trial Court’s Disposition: On October 3, 2012, the trial court imposed 

its judgment and sentence on the Resisting 

Arrest conviction. CR 46; RR IV 11-12. 

Appellant was sentenced to 90 days in jail, 

probated for 15 months, including six days 

in jail as a condition of probation. CR 5, 46. 

Appellant appealed to the Third Court of 

Appeals. 

Court of Appeals’ Disposition: On August 28, 2014, the court of appeals 

affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a 2-1 

opinion. Appellant filed a motion for en 

banc reconsideration, which was denied on 

October 10, 2014. Appellant then filed a 

Petition for Discretionary Review, which 

this Court granted on March 18, 2015. 
vi

ISSUE PRESENTED

When a person attempts to evade an unlawful arrest by refusing to comply with the 

officers’ attempt to effectuate the arrest, while using no offensive force against the 

officers, has this person committed the crime of Resisting Arrest? RR III 56-83.
1

NO. PD-1473-14

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

WILLIAM BRYAN FINLEY, III § APPELLANT

vs. §

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS

CASE NUMBER 03-13-00015-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NUMBER 11-01764-2

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW Appellant William Bryan Finley, III, by and through his 

undersigned counsel, and offers this Brief on the Merits. This case presents a 

compelling scenario that highlights the statutory distinction between Evading and 

Resisting Arrest. Williamson County police officers attempted to unlawfully arrest 

Appellant, and without using any force against them, Appellant exercised his right 

to evade their violent, improper conduct. As a result, he was not guilty of Resisting 
2

Arrest as a matter of law. In support of this argument, Appellant would respectfully 

show this Court the following: 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Leander Police Department (LPD) Officer Ginger Fuller testified that she 

was working a Warrant Roundup on March 5, 2011. RR II 20. LPD’s warrant 

officer, Scott Connor, had compiled the list of active municipal court warrants, and 

one of these warrants was for the arrest of Dennis Boyd for an outstanding 

speeding ticket. RR II 21. Boyd lived at Appellant’s residence, and Appellant 

answered when Officer Fuller knocked on the door.1 RR II 22-24. After Fuller 

explained that she had a warrant for Boyd’s arrest, Appellant responded that Boyd 

was asleep inside the home, and he requested that Fuller produce a copy of the 

warrant. RR II 24-26. Officer Fuller deemed this request “very uncooperative,” and 

she had an officer “pulled off the streets” in order to obtain a copy of the warrant to 

show to Appellant.2 RR II 25-26. Appellant advised Fuller that once he received a 

copy of the warrant, he would permit the police to speak to Boyd. RR II 26. Due to 

LPD’s classification of Appellant’s behavior as “uncooperative,” a backup officer, 

 

1 Boyd is now Appellant’s son-in-law, and he was engaged to Appellant’s daughter at the time of 

this incident. RR II 175, 204.

2

LPD’s contemptuous attitude toward Appellant permeated the officers’ testimony throughout 

the trial. Of course, Fuller would not have had to “pull” an officer off the streets if she had 

simply brought a copy of the warrant with her on the initial approach to Appellant’s residence.
3

Jarrett Rollins, arrived on scene. RR II 27. 

Corporal John Lauden brought a copy of the warrant, and after reviewing it, 

Appellant determined that it contained deficiencies that made it invalid. RR II 26-

27. Lauden’s video of the incident demonstrates that despite Appellant’s opinion 

about the warrant’s invalidity, Appellant agreed to show the warrant to Boyd. RR 

V St.Ex.1 (Lauden, 8:49:06-8:49:11). Once inside his home, Appellant called 911 

in order to inform the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office that LPD might be 

serving a false warrant. RR II 28, 83-84. At this point, about 30 minutes had passed 

since Officer Fuller’s initial arrival on scene. RR II 28. 

Fuller testified that Officer Connor, the warrant officer, arrived, and he 

attempted to detain Appellant. RR II 30. At this point, Appellant began “pulling 

away” from Connor’s attempt to place him in handcuffs. RR II 30. According to 

Fuller, they then went to the ground, and Appellant’s hands were beneath his body 

as Connor attempted to handcuff him. RR II 30. Officer Rollins then tazed 

Appellant in the leg with a five-second drive-stun.3 RR II 31. Fuller testified that 

Appellant continued “actively resisting,” so Rollins drive-stunned him again. RR II 

31. Following this exercise of force, Appellant submitted to the officers’ attempt to 

handcuff him. RR II 31. During the commotion, Boyd came to the door, and the 

 

3 Drive-stun tazing means that the prongs are not employed; a drive-stun occurs in close range, 

as the tazer is directly applied to a part of the subject’s body. RR II 32.
4

officers arrested him about a minute or two after the incident with Appellant had 

concluded. RR II 33. Although two pocketknives were discovered in Appellant’s 

pocket following his arrest, there was nothing illegal about his possession of these 

items. RR II 32, 64. 

On cross-examination, Officer Fuller testified that Appellant never lied to 

her during their initial encounter. RR II 40. Moreover, he did not attempt to hit, 

kick, punch, or bite any of the officers. RR II 64. In fact, Fuller unequivocally 

testified that Appellant did not use any force directly against the officers. RR II 65. 

She characterized Appellant’s use of “force” as his conduct in preventing Officer 

Connor from pulling his arm behind his back. RR II 72. Fuller testified that she 

“would consider it force against allowing the officer to effect an arrest or 

detention.” RR II 75.

Corporal John Lauden testified that he brought a copy of Boyd’s warrant to 

Appellant’s address. RR II 78. According to Lauden, within a minute of Connor’s 

arrival, a scuffle occurred on Appellant’s front porch. RR II 88. Lauden did not 

observe the incident because he was watching two females who came to the front

door during the commotion. RR II 88. 

Officer Scott Connor testified that he coordinated the Warrant Roundup on 

March 5, 2011. RR II 112-13. Based on information that he received from 

Corporal Lauden, Connor arrived on scene in order to detain Appellant for 
5

Hindering Apprehension. RR II 114. Connor testified that he hoped that by doing 

so, Boyd would come outside of the residence. RR II 115. Connor testified that 

upon Appellant answering his knock at the door, Connor inquired whether 

Appellant’s son was inside the residence. RR II 116-17. Appellant answered that 

his son was not inside, but his future son-in-law was there. RR II 117. Based on 

this response and information from both Lauden and Fuller, Connor testified that 

he “figured it was time to go ahead and put a stop to the games.” RR II 117. 

Connor told Appellant to turn around and place his hands behind his back. RR II 

117. Connor testified that Appellant clenched up, pulling his arm away. RR II 118.

Because Connor could not fully control Appellant, Officer Rollins assisted him. 

RR II 118. They then pinned Appellant against the front door. RR II 118. Connor 

testified that Appellant “was actively pulling away and trying to get away from 

us.” RR II 118. When Appellant failed to comply with Connor’s order for him to 

get on the ground, Connor took him to the ground in order to gain control. RR II 

118. Connor clarified that he took Appellant to the ground by using Connor’s right 

leg to trip Appellant off of his balance. RR II 124. Connor further testified that the 

porch where the incident occurred is a confined space. RR II 124.

Once Appellant was on the ground, Officer Connor jammed his left knee 

into Appellant’s lower back area while holding him down. RR II 124. Officer 

Rollins deployed his tazer by drive-stunning Appellant in the left calf. RR II 126. 
6

Rollins then deployed a second drive-stun tazing cycle, and Appellant complied. 

RR II 127. Although pocketknives were found in Appellant’s pocket following his 

arrest, Connor testified that he was unaware of these knives during the scuffle. RR 

II 128, 136-37.

On cross-examination, Officer Connor testified that he drafted a Probable 

Cause Affidavit on the basis of the alleged Resisting Arrest, and in this affidavit, 

he stated that the following actions constituted the act of Resisting: (1) Appellant 

tensing up his body, (2) Appellant refusing to put his hands behind his back, and 

(3) Appellant attempting to keep his hands underneath his body while he was on 

the ground. RR II 134, CR 6. Connor testified that Appellant did not hit him with 

his hands, slam against him with his body, or kick at him. RR II 138. Connor 

clarified his basis for the Resisting Arrest charge: “By not allowing me to place 

him in handcuffs, I would say that he was using force to resist me.” RR II 139. 

Officer Connor’s in-car video reflects that upon Connor’s arrival, Connor

discussed the situation with the other officers on scene and seemed annoyed that 

Appellant had called the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office about LPD serving a 

false warrant. RR V St.Ex.1 (Connor, at 9:03:46-9:03:56). When Appellant 

answered the door, Connor inquired whether Appellant’s son was inside the 

residence. RR V St.Ex.1 (Connor, at 9:04:59). Appellant explained that his son was 

not inside, but his future son-in-law (i.e., Boyd) was there. RR V St.Ex.1 (Connor, 
7

at 9:05:00-9:05:04). Before Appellant completed his explanation, Connor told him 

to “turn around, put your hands behind your back.” RR V St.Ex.1 (Connor, at 

9:05:04-9:05:05). Connor then aggressively growled at Appellant to get on the 

ground. RR V St.Ex.1 (Connor, at 9:05:13-9:03:15). Appellant objected to the 

brutality of the situation: “What the hell’s wrong with you?!” RR V St.Ex.1 

(Connor, at 9:05:16). A few seconds later, an officer yelled out “tazer, tazer!” RR 

V St.Ex.1 (Connor, at 9:05:22).

LPD Officer Jarrett Rollins added further details about the incident. 

According to Rollins’ testimony, when Officer Connor attempted to place 

Appellant in handcuffs, Appellant pulled away. RR II 154. Connor grabbed 

Appellant’s left hand while Rollins attempted to grab his right hand, but Appellant 

pulled away. RR II 154. After Connor took Appellant to the ground, Rollins 

employed two separate drive-stun cycles with his tazer. RR II 155. The first cycle

lasted about three seconds, while the second cycle lasted about five seconds. RR II 

155. Rollins testified that he was not endangered by the alleged force used by 

Appellant. RR II 162. Appellant never lashed out at any of the officers, and he did 

not attempt to kick or hit the officers in any way. RR II 163, 165. In fact, Rollins 

testified that Appellant never used force against the officers at all. RR II 167.

Dennis Boyd testified that he lived at Appellant’s residence on March 5, 

2011, and he is now Appellant’s son-in-law. RR II 174-75. He was asleep when 
8

Appellant came into his bedroom to inform him that an officer was on her way 

with a copy of a warrant for his arrest, and he needed to get ready. RR II 178. Boyd 

testified that as he entered the living room after getting dressed, he heard a 

commotion on the porch and officers saying “tazer, tazer, tazer.” RR II 179-80.

Boyd further testified that Appellant never tried to prevent him from going outside 

to deal with the warrant. RR II 189.

Joel Lightford testified that he lives directly across the street from 

Appellant’s residence. RR II 190. Lightford came outside of his front door shortly 

after 9:00 a.m. on March 5, 2011, when he noticed police cars. RR II 191-92. 

Lightford witnessed three male officers on the front porch of Appellant’s 

residence. RR II 192. One officer was positioned to the left of Appellant, and the 

other two were on top of him. RR II 192. Lightford testified that the two officers 

who were on top of Appellant were aggressive and pulled tazers. RR II 193. One of 

the officers aggressively slammed Appellant’s head against the ground over five 

times. RR II 194. Lightford did not witness Appellant hit, kick, push, or make any 

type of move towards the officers. RR II 194. Lightford further testified that he 

only knows Appellant as his neighbor, and they are not close personal friends. RR 

II 195.

Appellant’s daughter, Patricia Boyd (hereafter “Patricia”), testified that she 

was living at Appellant’s residence with Dennis Boyd at the time of this incident. 
9

RR II 204. Initially, she was asleep in bed with Dennis when Appellant came into 

their bedroom to wake them up; Appellant came back a little bit later to show 

Dennis a piece of paper. RR II 214-15. 

Patricia testified that she was about four feet away from the events on the 

porch. RR II 205. The commotion began about five seconds after Appellant went 

outside to talk to Officer Connor. RR II 205-06. Connor quickly turned Appellant 

around by placing both hands on his arm and shoulder, and then Connor slammed

Appellant against the front door. RR II 206, 208. Appellant clasped his right hand 

onto his left wrist in front of his body. RR II 206. Another officer then assisted 

Connor, and they took Appellant to the ground, forcing him into a rock pillar in the 

process. RR II 208. Patricia testified that Appellant did not make any of the 

following actions towards the officers: (1) swinging, (2) kicking, or (3) pushing. 

RR II 209, 211. In fact, Appellant’s hands were clasped together underneath his 

stomach while he was on the ground. RR II 209-10. Patricia testified that Officer 

Connor slammed Appellant’s head into the concrete ground about three times with 

extreme force. RR II 210.

Appellant testified that when he first encountered Officer Fuller, she only 

had a piece of paper with a list of names and addresses. RR III 16. He asked her to 

obtain a copy of the warrant, and she volunteered to do so. RR III 16. Appellant 

proceeded inside to wake up Dennis Boyd. RR III 17. When Fuller returned with a 
10

copy of the warrant about 15 minutes later, he told her that even though he 

believed the warrant was invalid, he would inform Boyd, who would then come 

outside. RR III 19-20. Appellant testified that he called 911 so that the 

“conservators of the peace” would come to the property to ensure that no laws 

were being violated. RR III 21. He then gave the copy of the warrant to Boyd, who 

intended to come outside. RR III 21. Moments later, Officer Connor knocked on 

his door. RR III 21. Appellant testified that he went outside, where four officers 

were waiting for him. RR III 22. Connor asked if Appellant’s son was home, and 

before he could finish clarifying that Boyd was his future son-in-law, Officer 

Connor put both hands on Appellant’s left arm. RR III 24. Appellant testified that 

he was afraid that Connor was trying to break his arm, so he clasped his right hand 

onto his left wrist in order to prevent Connor from forcing his left arm behind his 

back. RR III 24. Appellant had torn his right rotator cuff 20 years ago, and he did 

not want to injure his good arm. RR III 24, 26.

Appellant testified that he was spun around and slammed into the front door. 

RR III 26. The officers then slammed him into a limestone column on his porch. 

RR III 27. Appellant testified that he still has limestone marks on his coat from 

being slammed into the column. RR III 28. 

Appellant testified that he had nowhere to retreat because he was confined 

by walls on three sides of the front porch, and the fourth side was the stairs going 
11

down. RR III 28. After being taken to the ground, Appellant’s arms were hooked 

together underneath his body. RR III 29. At one point, an officer forcefully grasped 

his left ear and used it has a handle in order to slam his head into the concrete three 

times while he was being tazed on the back left leg. RR III 30. Appellant testified 

that he did not kick, push, or pull away from the officers in a rough manner. RR III 

29-30.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict on the Resisting 

Arrest charge. There was not one scintilla of evidence that Appellant used force 

against the officers, as required by TEX. P. CODE §38.03. Appellant’s conduct 

constituted passive non-cooperation, and it presented no danger to the arresting 

officers. As a result, his conduct can be more aptly characterized as an attempt to 

evade the officers. Because the officers were unlawfully arresting him for 

Hindering Apprehension, Appellant had the right to engage in this conduct. 

Appellant never crossed the line from Evading to Resisting, and, as a result, he 

should have been acquitted of Resisting Arrest.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL 

COURT’S VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE RESISTING ARREST 
12

CHARGE. 

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court reviews all of 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond 

a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Ross v. State, 

133 S.W.3d 618, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Courts measure the sufficiency of 

the evidence against a hypothetically correct jury charge. See Malik v. State, 953

S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). When reviewing all of the evidence 

under the Jackson standard of review, the question is whether the factfinder’s 

ultimate determination was a rational one. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 902 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

A. Evidence of non-cooperation is not sufficient to establish 

Resisting Arrest because the statute requires that the 

defendant use force against the arresting officer.

As a starting point in the analysis, a review of the Resisting Arrest statute is 

appropriate. TEX. P. CODE §38.03(a) defines the offense:

A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs 

a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace 

officer’s presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, 

or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the 

peace officer or another.

Based on this statute, a defendant’s use of force is not enough to meet the statutory 

definition; instead, the defendant must use force “against the peace officer.”
13

In determining whether a defendant used force against an officer, courts 

distinguish between acts of “passive resistance” and acts that constitute actual 

force against an officer. See Sartain v. State, 228 S.W.3d 416, 425 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d). For example, the act of flailing one’s arms at an 

officer qualifies as force against an officer and can support a conviction for 

Resisting Arrest. Id. However, making an effort to avoid an officer’s detention 

attempt would not qualify as Resisting Arrest unless the defendant used some force 

against the officer. Compare id. at 424, with Torres v. State, 103 S.W.3d 623, 627 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (where defendant used the requisite force 

to support a Resisting Arrest charge when he raised his arm and knocked the 

officer’s hand away to prevent the officer from handcuffing him).

This Court recently addressed the Resisting Arrest statute, as codified in 

TEX. P. CODE §38.03(a). See Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). In that case, the defendant held a firearm as officers attempted to arrest him. 

Dobbs, 434 S.W.3d at 168. However, the defendant did not use or threaten to use 

the firearm against the officers; instead, he pointed the gun at his own temple. Id. 

The defendant then retreated inside his house, where he was tazed and fell to the 

floor. Id. After the defendant refused to comply with an officer’s order to put his 

hands behind his back, he was again tazed. Id. At this point, the officers 

successively arrested the defendant and transported him to jail. Id.
14

In determining that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s 

verdict convicting the Dobbs defendant of Resisting Arrest, this Court analyzed the 

statute and found that “the statutory language plainly requires a use of force 

directed ‘against’ the officer himself, not against his broader goal of effectuating 

an arrest.” Id. at 171. This Court further explained:

The Legislature’s inclusion of the word “against” before the words 

“the peace officer” signifies that it intended to require proof that a 

defendant not only generally used force in the presence of the officer, 

but also that he specifically used force in the direction of and/or in 

contact with, or in hostility or opposition to, the officer. See [TEX. P.

CODE §38.03(a)]. The statutory language thus requires not merely a 

showing that the actor engaged in some conduct designed to delay his 

arrest or to make his arrest more difficult, but rather that he have used 

some kind of force in opposition to, in the direction of, or in contact 

with the officer himself for the purpose of preventing an arrest. See id.

Were we to interpret the phrase “against the peace officer” as 

encompassing any and all force employed for the purpose of opposing 

the officer’s goal of effectuating an arrest, we would effectively 

render that phrase superfluous because the other statutory terms 

already require proof that the actor prevented or obstructed an arrest 

through his use of force.

Id. at 171-72

In order for the evidence to be sufficient to support a Resisting Arrest 

conviction, the defendant must engage in conduct that is more than merely 

Evading. See TEX. P. CODE §38.04. “[The Resisting Arrest statute] applies only to 

resistance by the use of force. One who runs away or makes an effort to shake off 

an officer’s detaining grip may be guilty of evading arrest under §38.04, but he is 

not responsible under this section.” Washington v. State, 525 S.W.2d 189, 190 
15

(Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (quoting Seth S. Searcy III & James R. Patterson, Practice 

Commentary, TEX. P. CODE §38.03). 

The distinction between the Evading and Resisting statutes is helpful in 

demarcating the type of force that elevates conduct to Resisting Arrest. In enacting 

the Evading statute, the Legislature included a defense for people who evade an 

unlawful arrest. See TEX. P. CODE §38.04(a) (requiring that the criminal act of 

fleeing be from an officer attempting lawfully to arrest a person). Meanwhile, the 

Legislature clearly forbids a defendant accused of Resisting Arrest from asserting a 

defense that the arrest was unlawful. See TEX. P. CODE §38.03(b). Courts 

interpreting this distinction between the two statutes have found that there is no 

danger of injury to the officers in the act of Evading, while the act of Resisting 

presents a danger to an arresting officer. See Raymond v. State, 640 S.W.2d 678, 

679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1982, no pet.).

4

 

As a result of the danger inherent in the act of Resisting Arrest, a defendant 

cannot claim that his use of force against the officer is excused by the unlawful 

nature of the arrest. Even in the context of an unlawful arrest, the Legislature 

sought to discourage people from endangering the safety of officers. However, a 

 

4 Appellant acknowledges that the El Paso Court of Appeals disavowed Raymond to the extent 

that it endorsed a toward/away distinction in analyzing the requisite force under the Resisting 

Arrest statute. See Hopper v. State, 86 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.). 

However, the Raymond court’s analysis remains rooted in logic regarding the demarcation 

between Evading and Resisting in terms of the level of danger posed to the officer.
16

person can flee an unlawful arrest or detention because no endangering force is 

being used against the officer. Thus, the law allows a person to make efforts to 

avoid an unlawful arrest, with the boundary on this allowance being the point at 

which force is used against the officer. Up until that point, the defendant’s conduct 

has not directly endangered the officer. See Sheehan v. State, 201 S.W.3d 820, 823 

(Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (employing the distinction between conduct that 

endangers an officer versus conduct that poses no such danger).

Several fact patterns are helpful in highlighting the difference between 

Evading and Resisting. In Leos v. State, arresting officers forced the defendant to 

the ground, but he continued to struggle by holding his hands to his stomach so 

that the officers could not handcuff him. 880 S.W.2d 180, 181 (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi 1994, no pet.). This defendant also attempted to crawl away on his 

shoulders and knees. Id. The court of appeals noted that while this defendant’s 

conduct certainly suggested the use of force, it did not constitute Resisting Arrest 

because the force was not directed against the officers. Id. at 184. The court 

explained:

The idea of violence directed specifically toward [the arresting 

officer] conflicts with this image of appellant crawling on his 

shoulders and knees with his hands clasped to his stomach. By 

attempting to crawl away, appellant invited prosecution for evading 

arrest. Merely trying to flee does not, however, involve sufficient 

force directed at the peace officer to sustain a conviction for resisting 

arrest. Nor is the peace officer the object of any force expended in 
17

shaking off a detaining grip, which implies no less force than refusing 

to submit to the handcuffs. 

Id. (citations omitted)

Likewise, in Raymond, the defendant’s act of pulling his arm away from an 

officer’s detaining grip did not qualify as force against the officer, and, thus, he 

could not be guilty of Resisting Arrest. 640 S.W.2d at 679; see also Anderson v. 

State, 707 S.W.2d 267, 270 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (finding 

that “[p]ulling away from a police officer does not constitute a force against a 

police officer and is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for resisting arrest.”).

Sheehan is also persuasive authority on this issue. See 201 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). In that case, the defendant attempted to avoid an 

arrest by standing up, pulling his hands into his chest, and leaning towards his 

bunk bed. Id. at 821. Reviewing the relevant case law, the Waco Court of Appeals 

found that “[c]ourts have concluded that non-cooperation with an arrest is not an 

act of ‘use of force against’ a peace officer under the resisting arrest statute...” 

201 S.W.3d at 822. The court then gave three examples of non-cooperation that do 

not qualify as Resisting Arrest: (1) shaking off an officer’s detaining grip, (2) 

pulling away from an arresting officer after being arrested, and (3) crawling away 

from an arresting officer. Id. at 822-23. The court then stated in bold letters: 

“Thus, refusing to cooperate with being arrested does not constitute resisting 

arrest by force.” Id. at 823 (emphasis in original).
18

In order for a defendant’s non-cooperation to constitute Resisting Arrest, it 

must be combined with some element of force against the arresting officer. Id. For 

example, “evidence of non-cooperation combined with violent swings of the body 

and a forward movement causing the officer and the defendant to fall off a porch 

was sufficient to establish resisting arrest.” Id. (citing Bryant v. State, 923 S.W.2d 

199, 206 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, pet. ref’d)).

Turning to the case at bar, the Third Court of Appeals’ majority opinion 

focused on the fact that this Court in Dobbs cited Pumphrey v. State, a Texarkana 

court of appeals case in which the defendant’s “forceful pulling away from the 

officer” constituted force exerted “at or in opposition to” the peace officer. See 

Finley v. State, 449 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. granted)

(majority opinion); see also Dobbs, 434 S.W.3d at 172 (citing Pumphrey v. State, 

245 S.W.3d 85, 89-90 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. ref’d)). 

The majority’s reliance on this dicta from the Dobbs opinion is misplaced 

for two reasons. First, the Pumphrey defendant did more than merely pull away, as 

she committed the following acts of offensive force against the officer: “jerking 

against, turning in circles to resist, twisting and squirming to thwart, and struggling 

against.” See 245 S.W.3d at 89. These latter acts align the outcome of Pumphrey

with the aforementioned cases, as this conduct can be deemed sufficient offensive 

force against the arresting officer to qualify as Resisting Arrest. The Pumphrey 
19

defendant used a level of force against the officers that was more than a mere 

defensive, non-cooperative effort to evade arrest. 

Second, as Chief Justice Jones pointed out in his dissenting opinion in the 

case at bar, categorizing this pulling behavior as Resisting Arrest would blur the 

line of demarcation between acts of force directed against the broader goal of 

effectuating an arrest (i.e., force that does not qualify as Resisting Arrest) and acts 

of force directed against the actual officer (i.e., force that qualifies as Resisting 

Arrest). See Finley, 449 S.W.3d at 152. Chief Justice Jones explained:

Questions persist. For example, what does “in opposition to” mean? In 

its broadest sense, this phrase could include opposition to the officer’s 

“broader goal of effectuating an arrest.” If the phrase means less than 

that, how are the boundaries of that standard to be determined? Is the 

line of demarcation when the arrestee comes “in contact with the 

officer himself”? But if that is the defining threshold, does it include 

contact initiated by the officer?

Id.

Once contact is initiated by an officer, how can a person use force to resist 

the broader goal of effectuating an arrest unless that person pulls away? The 

Legislature intended to permit this type of evasive behavior in certain 

circumstances, as Evading Arrest is a criminal offense only if the State proves that 

the person was being lawfully arrested. See TEX. P. CODE §38.04(a). 

In dismissing the toward/away distinction as requiring an overly

“metaphysical” analysis, the Pumphrey court erred by refusing to consider an 
20

important element of the analysis: whether the alleged force endangers the 

arresting officer. See 245 S.W.3d at 90 n.5. In enacting the Evading and Resisting 

statutes, the Legislature clearly created a demarcation between defensive and 

offensive force. When a person’s conduct in avoiding an arrest is defensive in 

nature (i.e., Evading), the conduct is not criminal if the arrest was unlawful. 

Meanwhile, when the person’s conduct in avoiding an arrest becomes offensive 

(i.e., Resisting), the conduct is criminal regardless of the lawfulness of the arrest. 

An offensive/defensive distinction accords with Legislative intent because 

offensive conduct against an arresting officer is more likely to directly endanger 

that officer, while defensive efforts to avoid the arresting officer do not pose a 

direct danger. Moreover, this distinction between offensive and defensive force 

avoids the directional problems associated with the toward/away distinction that 

the Pumphrey court criticizes. See id. at 91. Also, employing this 

offensive/defensive distinction would not alter the results of the cited cases, 

including Pumphrey.

Moreover, Presiding Judge Keller’s dissent (joined by Judge Meyers) in 

Thompson v. State demonstrates that the Finley majority should not have read so 

much into the Dobbs’ opinion’s dicta regarding evidence of “pulling away” being 

sufficient to support a Resisting Arrest conviction:
21

[T]he Court of Appeals appears to have misconstrued a statute, 

namely Texas Penal Code § 38.03...Under the Court of Appeals’ 

interpretation, it would appear that an accused “uses force against a 

peace officer” even though the accused’s action merely consists of 

refusing to yield to a peace officer’s use of force against the accused.

That interpretation seems questionable, and in my mind, appears to 

confuse which actor is actually using force. I am skeptical of the 

proposition that the mere resistance to force necessarily constitutes the 

actual use of force. The practice commentary to § 38.03, which we 

quoted in Washington, appears to require more: “The section applies 

only to resistance by the use of force. One who runs away or makes an 

effort to shake off the officer’s detaining grip may be guilty of 

evading arrest under § 38.04, but he is not responsible under this 

section.” Washington, 525 S.W.2d at 190 (quoting practice 

commentary).

Thompson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

(Keller, J., dissenting from refusal of PDR) (emphasis in original)

Considering that the Dobbs holding did not hinge on whether a “forceful pulling 

away” constitutes sufficient force to violate the Resisting Arrest statute, the court 

of appeals’ majority opinion in the present case placed too much weight on the 

dicta to this effect. 

In conclusion, this Court should hold that the mere act of pulling away from 

an officer does not qualify as Resisting Arrest when there is no evidence that the 

defendant directed any offensive force against the arresting officer.

B. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, 

Appellant’s non-cooperative conduct cannot be deemed 

Resisting Arrest because there was no evidence that he used 

force against the officers.
22

The evidence at trial was unequivocal that Appellant did not use force 

against the arresting officers. Instead, Appellant defensively attempted to avoid an 

unlawful arrest for Hindering Apprehension, which he was entitled to do under the 

Evading Arrest statute. See TEX. P. CODE §38.04. 

Officer Fuller testified that Appellant did not use any force directly against 

the officers. RR II 65. She characterized Appellant’s use of “force” as his conduct 

in preventing Officer Connor from pulling his arm behind his back. RR II 72. 

Officer Connor testified that Appellant’s use of force was his conduct in 

“actively pulling away and trying to get away from us.” RR II 118. Connor 

confirmed that Appellant did not hit him with his hands, slam against him with his 

body, or kick at him. RR II 138. Connor also unequivocally testified that he took 

Appellant to the ground. RR II 118, 124. Unlike Bryant v. State, there was no 

evidence that Appellant made any forceful movement that caused the officer and 

him to fall to the ground. See 923 S.W.2d at 206. 

Officer Connor’s Probable Cause Affidavit further revealed that the Leander 

Police Department misunderstood the law, as he stated that the following conduct 

constituted the requisite force for a Resisting Arrest charge: (1) Appellant tensing 

up his body, (2) Appellant refusing to put his hands behind his back, and (3) 

Appellant attempting to keep his hands underneath his body while he was on the 

ground. RR II 134, CR 6. The following testimony by Officer Connor encapsulates 
23

the State’s improper theory of guilt: “By not allowing me to place him in 

handcuffs, I would say that he was using force to resist me.” RR II 139. 

The State’s only other witness to the alleged incident of Resisting Arrest was 

Officer Rollins.5 Rollins testified that the alleged force by Appellant did not 

endanger him. RR II 162. Appellant never lashed out at any of the officers, and he 

did not attempt to kick or hit the officers in any way. RR II 163, 165. In fact, 

Rollins testified that Appellant never used force against the officers at all. RR II 

167.

Appellant’s conduct conformed exactly to the Legislature’s intent in creating 

a defense for evading an unlawful arrest. Here, the State proceeded on a baseless 

charge of Hindering Apprehension. See TEX. P. CODE §38.05. Specifically, the 

State alleged that Appellant harbored or concealed Dennis Boyd with intent to 

hinder Boyd’s arrest. RR II 7. The trial court properly acquitted Appellant on this 

charge, as there was neither evidence of an intent to hinder Boyd’s arrest nor

evidence of the alleged conduct of harboring or concealing. RR IV 5-6. Rather, the 

evidence was unequivocal that Appellant woke up Boyd, showed him a copy of the 

warrant, and informed him that he should get ready. RR II 178, 214-15; RR III 17, 

21. The video of the incident confirms that Appellant told the officers that he 

 

5 Corporal John Lauden testified that he did not witness the conduct giving rise to this charge. 

RR II 88.
24

would inform Boyd about the warrant. RR V St.Ex.1 (Lauden, 8:49:06-8:49:11). In 

fact, Boyd came to the door soon after the outdoor commotion began, and he was 

arrested within a minute or two afterward. RR II 33. Because there was no basis for 

the Hindering Apprehension charge, Appellant had a right to evade Officer 

Connor’s attempt to unlawfully arrest him for Hindering Apprehension. Of course, 

Appellant’s attempt to flee was unsuccessful due to him being surrounded by 

officers on a confined porch where there was nowhere to retreat.6 RR II 124, 160; 

RR III 28. 

Because there was not one scintilla of evidence that Appellant used force 

against the arresting officers, no rational trier of fact could have found Appellant 

guilty of Resisting Arrest. As a result, the State’s evidence was insufficient to 

establish that Appellant committed this offense.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court

sustain his point of error, reverse the court of appeals’ decision affirming the trial 

court’s judgment of conviction, and render a judgment acquitting Appellant of 

Resisting Arrest.

 

6

Even assuming a lawful arrest, Appellant’s conduct would not constitute Resisting Arrest 

because he did not use force against the arresting officers.
25

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher M. Perri______

CHRISTOPHER M. PERRI

Chris Perri Law

1504 West Ave.

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel. (512) 917-4378

Fax (512) 474-8252

chris@chrisperrilaw.com

State Bar No. 24047769

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for 

Discretionary Review was electronically transmitted to the following counsel of 

record for Appellee, via the electronic filing manager, on this the 15

th day of April, 

2015.

James LaMarca

Assistant Williamson County Attorney

405 M.L.K., Suite 240

Georgetown, Texas 78626

jlamarca@wilco.org

Lisa McMinn

State Prosecuting Attorney

P.O. Box 13046

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

information@spa.texas.gov

/s/ Christopher M. Perri______

Christopher M. Perri
26

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This is to certify that the above Appellant’s Brief on the Merits complies 

with the length requirements of TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(i)(2)(B) because it contains 

6,004 words, not including the parts of the Brief that are excepted under TEX. R.

APP. PROC. 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ Christopher M. Perri______

Christopher M. Perri