NO. 07-06 -041 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y27, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RANDY DEW AYNE COX , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 50, 197- C; H ON ORABLE PATRI CK A. PIR TLE, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Ran dy

D ew ay ne C ox , appeals his conv icti on for the offense of ev adi ng arrest or det ent ion w ith a vehicle and sente nce of 24 mon ths con f inem entin the Sta te Jail D i v i s i on o f t he Te x as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m.

Back g ro und On May 2 , 2 0 0 4 , p o lic e of f ice rs were ca lle d to th e sc e n e o f a p o ss ib le sh o o ti n g. Di spat chers s ent o ff ic ers M og eli nsky and Cea rl ey to the sc ene, w ho w ere lat er j oin ed by2

Corporal James and Sergeant R eed
. Mogelinsky arriv ed first and w as directe d by a w it ness to a person lea v ing toward a w hit e Subu rb an. The w it n e ss t o ld M og eli nsky that the p erson lea v ing had a gun. Mo g eli nsky and Cea rl ey

both headed tow ard the v ehi cl e to speak to the p erson w ho all eg edl y had a g un, but the person entered the v ehi cl e w it hout sto ppi ng for

the off ic ers. Bot h M og eli nsky and Cea rl ey

att empted t o s top t he v ehi cl e, bu t w ere uns ucc essf u l. As h e l e ft t he par ki ng l ot, the d ri v er hi t atl easttwo oth er

ca rs and cont inu ed to dr iv e away w it hout sto ppi ng . James att empted t o s top the v ehi cl e byst andi ng in the street an d placin g his han ds in f ront of him, b ut th e driv er cont inue d to drive tow ard James ca usi ng Ja mes t o j ump out of the way . Lik ew is e, R eed s tep ped i n frontof the v ehicle in an atte mp t to cause t he driv er t o stop , butin stea d the d riv er co ntinu ed to w ard Reed . In a f inal att em pt t o s t o p t h e v ehicle, Reed f ired several roun ds at th e v ehicle str ik ing the Subur ban and the dr iv er . The v ehi cl e cont inu ed to lea v e the sc ene and w as chase d by sev eral police ca rs until t h e Subu rban ev ent ually crashe d. T he o f f icers apprehended the dri v er and lat er

identi fied him as appell ant. Ap pel lan t was tak en to the hospi tal w here he w as treated and l ater ar re ste d. Appel lan t was ev entual ly ch arg ed w it h four c ounts of ev adi ng ar re st or dete nti on w it h a v ehi cl e, al l sta te j ail feloni es. After a j ur

y tr ial , app ell ant was found g uil ty of three of the four c ounts o f ev adi ng ar re st or dete nti on w it h a v ehi cl e and w as sent enc e d b y t h e t ri al cour t t o c oncur re nt sent ences of 24 month s c onfinement in a s tate ja il fa ci li ty i n the Tex as Dep artment of Criminal Justice
. By several po ints, ap pellan t now appea ls conte ndin g tha t the ev iden ce w as b ot h l eg al l y

a nd factu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt hi s c on v i cti on s . W e affi r m.3 Standa rd of Rev iew In ass ess ing the leg al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce, w e re v iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r an y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa ctco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t
. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct
. 2 781, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici e n cy r e v iew , an app ellate court ma y

not sit a s a t h irte ent h juror, butrather m ust up hold the jury’ s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or unsup por ted by more than a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . St ate, 755 S. W .2d 8 66, 8 67 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988)
. W hen an ap pellan t challen ges the factu al suf f iciency of the evidence suppo rting his conv icti on, t he rev iew ing co urt mus t det er mine w hether , c onsi der ing all the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, the j ur

y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified in findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty beyond a re asona ble doubt
. See W ats on v . St ate, 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. In performin g a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e mu st gi v e de feren c e t o t h e fact f inde r’s d e t e rm in a t io n s if

su p p o rt e d b y e vid e n c e a n d m a y n o to rd e r a n e w t ri a l s im p ly b e c a u s e we maydi sag re e w it h the v erdict. See id. at 417. As an a ppel lat e c our t, w e are notj ust ified in order ing a new

tri al unl ess there is some obj ect iv e basis in the record demons trati ng that the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of t he ev ide nce cont ra dicts the jur y ’s v erdict. See i d. Addi ti onal ly , an appel lat e opi nio n address ing factual su ff ic ien cy musti ncl ude a dis cus si on of t he mo s t i mp or

ta nte v i de nc e th at ap pe l l an t c l ai ms u nd er mi ne s t he j ur y ’ s v erdi ct. S i ms v . Stat e, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3).F urth e r re fe re nces to the Tex as Penal C ode An notat ed w il l be by referenc e to 1 “s ect ion __” or

“ § __. ” 4

Law and An alysi s A police o f

f icer’s interaction w ith a c itiz en ca n be classif ied as an enco unt er, detent ion , or

se iz ure. See C it iz en v . St a te , 3 9 S .W .3d 367, 37 0 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 1, no pet. ). An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on is a confrontat ion of a c it iz en by l aw enforcem entof

f icers w here in a citiz en yields to a display of auth orityand is temp orarily deta i n e d fo r

p u r p o s e s o f a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n . J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 9 1 2 S
. W
. 2 d 2 2 7 , 2 35 (Tex .C ri m.App.1 995)
. An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on is per mitt ed i f it is su ppor ted b y re asona ble su spi ci on. Ci ti z en, 39 S.W .3d at 370. See al so Terr y v . O hio , 392 U .S. 1, 27 , 88 S. Ct . 1868 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1 968)
. Rea sonab le sus pic ion i s a par ti cul ar iz ed and obj ect iv e bas is for s uspecti ng the person is , has been, or so on w il l be eng ag ed in cr imi nal act iv ity . Ci ti z en, 3 9 S. W .3d a t 370 ( ci ti ng C ro ck ett v . S ta te , 803 S.W .2d 3 08, 3 11 (Tex .C ri m.App.1 991) ). In t his ca se, the jur

y found a p pel lan t g uil ty

of three s eparate o ffenses and found a p p e lla n t not g uil ty of on e offense. The three offenses w ere for ev adi ng ar re st w it h a motor v ehi cl e from Off ic er Cea rl ey , Cor poral James and Serg eant Ree d. Fro m the testim ony of

the of f icers, the jury hea rd thatthe po lice w ere called to the scene beca use of reports of

g unsh ots an d tha t som eon e ha d po ssibly bee n sho t in the head
. Th us, po lice w ere s ent t o the sc ene for the p ur pose of inv est ig ati ng pos si ble cr imi nal acti v ity su ch as ag g ra v ated ass aul t, see T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 02 (Ve rnon Supp . 200 7), or possibly 1 an unl awful di sc harg e of a firear m in a munic ipa li ty , see § 42.12. W hen M og eli nsky and5

Cearley arr iv ed, they received informa tion th at a person wi th a gun w as en tering a v ehicle dr iv en by

appell ant. Officer

C ear ley then tes ti fied th at he approache d the v ehi cl e, id e n t if ie d h im s e lf

a s a p o li c e o f

f ic e r, il lu m in a t e d t h e d ri ve r si d e wit h h is f la s h li gh t , m a d e e ye cont actw it h appel lan t, dis pla yed his w eapon, and v er bal ly ordered appe ll ant t o ex it
. Ins tead, appel lan t drov e away and hitat lea st one ot her v ehi cl e a n d c o n ti nued dr iv ing w it hout sto ppi ng . At t hat p oin t, appel lan t had arg uabl y committe d the cri minal of fense of failu re to per

form hi s d uty

upon str ik ing an u natte nded v ehi cl e. See T EX . T R ANSP . C ODE A NN . § 550.024 ( Ver n o n 1999). Onc e appel lan t was obser v ed damag ing unattended v ehicles wi tho ut sto ppin g to lea v e his perso nal informa tion, of f icers had a uth orityto arrest appel lan t. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 14.01( b) ( Ver non 200 5)
. C or poral James and Se rg eant Ree d tes ti fied to attempti ng to sto p appell ant b y st andi ng i n the path of the v ehi cl e and hol din g thei r hands outward to s ig nal to appel lan t t hei r re q uestto appel lan t t o sto p the v ehi cl e. Both James and Ree d tes ti fied to b e in g i n p oli ce uni form. Appel lan t cont inu ed to w ard the off ic ers a nd, a cc ordin g to so m e t e st imony , may hav e ev en acc ele ra ted t ow ard the off ic ers. In re v iew ing the e v ide nce for l eg al suffici ency , we v iew al l the e v ide nce in the l ig ht m o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f f a c tc o u ld h a ve found the e ss enti al ele ments of the offense beyond a re asona ble doubt
. In t his ca se, w hen O ff ic er

C ear ley ordered appe ll ant t o ex itthe v ehi cl e, Cear ley had infor mati on th at a person w ho had jus t ent ered th e v ehi cl e h a d a gun. W hen a detent ion i s b ased upon condu ct, the condu ct need no t i tse lf be u nla wful or

i n s ome se nse inc onsi ste nt w it h inn ocenc e. Coo k v . State, 1 S.W .3d 722, 725 (Tex .App. –El Paso1999, no pet.)
. Innoc ent6

beh avior w ill f requent ly provi de th e ba sis fo r a showing of proba ble cau se or reason able sus pic ion and in maki ng a deter minat ion of probabl e cause or

reaso nabl e suspi ci on, t he re lev ant i nq uir

y i s n ot w hether par

ti cul ar condu ct is inn ocent or cr imi nal , but t he deg re e of sus pic ion thatatt aches to par ti cul ar ty pes of noncr imi nal acts. I d. In t he pres ent cas e, t he of f icers w ho were dispatch ed to inv estigate a shoo ting w ere informe d of the po ssible loc ati on of a g un. Obj ect iv e fact s, meani ng les s to the untrai ned, w hen used bytrain ed l aw enforcem entof

f icers can be co mb ined with p ermissible d edu ctions f rom such facts to form a l eg it imat e bas is for sus pic ion of a par ti cul ar person. I d. Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat Cea rl ey had par ti cul ar iz ed infor mati on and an obj ect iv e basi s for su specti ng thata pe rs on in the v ehi cl e had been eng ag ed in cr imi nal acti v ity and, therefore, conc lud e tha t C ear ley had reason abl e suspi ci on to support an inv est ig ati v e det enti on. Ci ti z en, 3 9 S. W .3d a t 370 . Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat, loo ki ng at the t otal ity of t he ci rc umstan ces , t he ev ide nce at tr ial demonst ra ted that Off ic er C ear ley had suffici ent b asi s for an i nv est ig ati v e det enti on. See C o o kv . S t a t e , 1 S
. W
. 3 d a t7 2 5
. L i k e w i s e , b o t h J a me s a n d R e e d t e s t i fi e d that app ellantcollided wi th parke d cars a nd cont inue d w ithou t stop ping. Th erefore, th ey w ere author iz ed to ar re st appel lan t for the offense of failu re to per form hi s d uty

upon str ik ing an unatt ended v ehi cl e. Furth er , J ames a nd R eed were bot h aware tha t M og eli nsky and Cearley were attem pting to stop the v ehicle. Reed also testif ied to hea ring som eon e y ell, “H e’s g ot a g un.” I n order for t he St ate t o prov e the el ements of ev adi ng dete nti on w it h a v ehi cl e, the State w as req uired to prov e that appell ant int enti onal ly f led f ro m a pers on he knew to be a pe ace o f

f icer attem pting to lawfully arrest or det ain him a nd used a v ehicle w hil e i n flig ht. See § 38.04( a) , (b )( 1)
. Appel lan t onl y dis puted w hether the off ic ers h ad a legal basis for deta ining him. W e con clude tha t, v iew ing all the ev iden ce in the lig ht m ost7

fav orabl e to the v erdict, that the e v ide nce was leg all y su ff ic ien t for a rati onal tr ier of fact to h a ve fo u n d t h a tt h e o f f ic e rs h a d t h e le ga l a u t h o ri ty t o d e t a in a p p e ll a n t
. T h e re fo re , we o ve rr u le a p p e ll a n t ’s is s u e o f le ga l s u f

f ic ie n cy. W e next re v iew all the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht in order to ass ess w heth e r the ev ide nce w as factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he c onv icti ons. See W ats on, 2 04 S. W .3d a t 415
. W e espe cially rev iew the evidence that appe llant cl aim s und ermi n e s t h e jury ’s v erdict. Sim s, 99 S. W .3d at 603 . Appe llant’s prima ry conte ntion is that neith er the o f f icers or anyone el se ass oci ated w it h l aw enforc ement s aw

a g un or knew that a person w it h a g un had ent ered th e v ehi cl e. Fur ther , app ell ant c ontends the detent ion co uld not be l eg al becau se the o ff ic ers d id not h av e a c red ib le o r identi fiabl e w it ness to the o ffense of p o s s e s s io n o f

a we a p o n . Ho we ve r, a n o f f ic e r m a y u s e in fo r m a t io n gi ve n t o t h e m b y a w it ness , i n addi ti on to thei r ow n i nformati on and percept ion s, to mak e a d eci si on as to w het her to d eta in a perso n or not . Th e m o s treliab le form o f citiz en-informa nt tip is informa tion g ive n b y

a face-to -face informa nt w ho h as no othe r contactw ith the police b e y o n d w i t n e s s i n g a c r i mi n a l a ct
. S t a t e v . G r i ffe y , 2 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d 700, 704- 705 (Te x .Ap p.–Aust in 200 7, pe t. ref ’d). Becau se of t he inhe rent reliabilityo f citiz en informa nts, the i nformati on th ey

prov ide d to pol ic e c an be suffici ent t o es tabl is h reason abl e s uspi ci on to de tai n a p erson. Se e i d. W e, therefore, conc lud e that each of the off ic ers h ad s uff ic ien t inform a ti o n to detai n appel lan t and the occ upants of the v ehi cl e. The detent ion w as suppo rt ed by

the ev ide nce g ain ed from t he pol ic e di spat cher , t he w it ness at the s cene, and the of f icers’ ow n ob serv ation s w hile at the sce ne. T here fore, review ing all of the evidence in a n e u t ra l l ig h tin c lu d in g t h e e v i d e n c e a p p e ll a n tcl a im s u n d e rm in e s t h e ve rd ic t , we8

conc lud e under

a t otal ity

of the circ umstan ces thatthe ev ide nce tak en to g ether w it h ra ti onal i nferenc es from thos e facts, w as suffici ent to ra ti onal ly j ust ify the jur y ’s findi ng that the a ppel lan t was gui lt y beyond a re asona ble doubt
. See W ats on, 2 04 S. W .3d a t 415
. W e o ve rr u le a p p e ll a n t ’s is s u e o f fa ct u a l s u f

f ic ie n cy. Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e aff ir m the jud g ments.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.