As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on and t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s, we wi l l not r eci t e t hem 1 e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0056 6-CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
EL IA S GA RC IA , JR ., A pp ellan t,
v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON 1 

### Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t El ias Gar ci a, J r. appeal s fr om hi s c onv ic ti on for th e felony off ense of
ev adi n g ar re st or

dete nti on w it h a v ehi cl e. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 38. 04( a) , ( b)2

( V e r n o n S u p p
. 2 0 0 9 )

. Th e o ffe n s e w a s e n h a n c e d t o a t h i r d
- d e g r e e fe l o n y b e c a u s e o f a pr ior co nv ic ti on for ev adi ng ar re st or dete nti on. See id

. § 38.04( b) (2 )( A)

. The ju ry found Gar ci a g uil ty of

the off ense, as ses sed puni shmentat four y ear s' co nfinement in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of

the Tex as Depa rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ce, and impos ed a $5,000 fine. By hi s s ole i ss ue, G ar ci a c o n te n d s that the e v ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o s how that he i ntent ion all y

fled fr om the off ic er o r th a t he knew the off ic er

w as attempt ing to de ta i n hi m. W e affi r m.

S TA NDA RDS OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW In r ev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce, an a ppel lat e cour t ex amines the
ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the S tate to de ter mine w hether any r ati onal finder of f actco uld hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of the offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ; W ats on v. St

ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 17 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. The st a n d a rd i s t he s ame for b oth d ir ectand ci rc umstan ti al
ev ide nce. Suther

li n v . St ate , 682 S.W .2d 546 , 549 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84) (en ba nc). The tr ier of f acti s t he s ole j udg e of the facts, the cr edi bil it y of the w it ness es, and the
w eig ht g iv en to tes ti mony
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38 .04 (Vernon 197 9); Jac ks on , 443 U .S. at 31 8- 39; Beck hamv. Sta te , 29 S.W .3d 148, 151 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2000, pet. r ef'd)

. W e do not r eev alu ate t he w eig ht an d c re dib il it y of the
ev ide nce, w hether

ci rc umstan ti al or

di re ct, nor

do w e s ubst it ute o ur

ow n j udg ment for that of t he tr ier

of fact. Mo sley v. State , 141 S.W .3d 816, 821 (Tex . App.–Tex ar kana 2004, pet.
re f'd); Beck

ham , 29 S. W .3d a t 151

. Ins tead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y r eache d a
ra ti onal dec is ion

. Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

.3

A person commi ts the o ff ense of ev adi ng ar re st or dete nti on "i f he in tenti onal ly flees from a pe rs on he know s is a peace of ficer attempti ng to law

fully ar re st or deta in him. " T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 38. 04(a ). A person act s inten tiona lly w ith respe ct to the result of his condu ct w hen i t i s h is co nsc iou s o bje cti v e or des ire t o c a u se the r esul t. Id . § 6.03( a) (V er non 200 3)

. Inten t i s a fact q uest ion for t he j ur y and maybe i nferr ed from t he ac ts and cond uct of

the accuse d an d f rom th e circumst ance s und er w hich th e proh ibited acts occur. See Ma nr

iqu e v. State , 994 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 49 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ( en banc ); Her nandez
v. State, 8 1 9 S

. W

. 2 d 8 0 6 , 8 1 0 ( T e x. C ri m
. A p p
. 1 9 9 1 ) (e n b a n c ). " Ap e rs o n a c t s kn o win gl y,
or w it h k now led g e, w ith r e spect t o the natu re of his co nductor to ci rc umstan ces
sur ro undi ng hi s c onduc t w hen he is aw ar e of the natu re of his co nductor thatthe ci rc umstan ces ex is t." T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 6.0 3(b) (Vernon 200 3). L EGA L S U FFI C I ENC Y A N AL Y S IS By his single issue on ap pea l, Garcia f irst conten d s t h a t t he e v iden ce w as legally insuf f icient to supp ort his conviction beca use th e Sta te did not show that he inten tiona lly fled from t he officer

. See i d. § 38 .04( a)

. The r ecord r ev eal s, how ev er , that on Oct ober 1, 2006, Vi cto ri a Poli ce Depa rt ment Off ic er Mic hael Smi th w as on s tandard pat ro l chec ki ng l ic ense pla tes

. After chec ki ng the pla tes of an "old er model Tow n [c ]ar ," he found that the car 's re g is tr ati on had ex pir ed in 2005 and beg an his pursui t of thatca r. As Officer Smit h follo w ed Gar ci a w ho w as the dr iv er of t he Tow n Car , Gar ci a inc re ased hi s speed from 35 mile s p e r h o ur to betw een 50 and 55 mil es an hour throug h a n eig hbor hood, sl ow ing on o ne oc cas ion , butno t stoppi ng as he t ur ned a cor ner
. W hen O ff ic er Smi th
came w it hin 100 y ar ds of G ar ci a's v ehi cl e, t he officer ac ti v ated his ov er head l ig hts

. At t hat ti me, th e off ic er

obs er v ed th e v ehi cle sw eep or sw er v e to the l eft and t ur n r ig ht on to a4

str eet a nd int o a cul -d e- sac
. Gar ci a w as attempt ing to g et out of t he cul -d e- sacw hen t he tw o cars me t at its ent rance . In add ition, Ga rcia's actions after exiting his v ehicle su ppo rt a de term inatio n tha t his inten t w as to f le e f ro m t h e po lice of f icer. Garcia repea ted ly
re fused to g et on the g ro und as Off ic er Smit h i nst ru cte d and y ell ed atthe off ic er
. He then
ra n and jumped a fence to ev ade O ff ic er Smi th. See G re en v

. St ate, 8 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 217, 218- 19 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1995, pet. r e f 'd ) (fin din g ev ide nce suffici ent t o s uppor t a def end ant 's conviction for evading deten tion when the def end ant had disobe y ed p olice
o f f ice r's i nst ru cti ons to c ome to a pat ro l car ); Leos v. State , 880 S.W .2d 180 , 184 (Te x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, no p et.) ( opi nin g that a pe rs on tr

y ing to cra wl a way f ro m an of f icer could be "evading" arrest). Gar ci a al so cl aims by

hi s s ole i ss ue th at t he ev ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o suppo rthi s conv ic ti on becau se the Stat e did not pr esent ev ide nce that he k new the off ic er
w as attempt ing to detai n hi m. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 38. 04( a)

. Ear ly i n the pursui t, Gar ci a may

not hav e k now n tha t O ff ic er Smith w as attempt ing to detai n him. How ev er , t he fac ts s ho w

t ha t, a s t he p ursuitc on ti nu ed , Ga r c i a' s s pe ed i nc r ea s ed , hi s d r i v i ng b ec am e erratic, a n d , a f

ter the of

f icer activ ate d his overhead lig hts, inst ead of stopp ing, Garcia
ma de a q uick sw eep lef t bef ore turning rig ht. He ent ered and atte mp ted to get out ofa culde- sac before sto ppi ng besi de the patr ol car at it s entr ance. After ex it ing th e vehic le, Gar ci a al so dis re g ar ded the off ic er 's co mmands t o g et on the g ro und. Gar ci a's r efusal to do so an d h i s s u c c e s s fu l a t t e mp tt o j u mp t h e fe n c e a n d e s c a p e w e r e i n c omplet e disob edie nce o f

the of f icer's orders. After ex amini ng the ev ide nce in the li g ht most f av or abl e to the v er dic t, w e c oncl ude that ther e i s l eg all y

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to show that Garc ia in tenti onal ly f led f ro m the o ff ic er5

and that he kne w

the of f icer w as att em pting to de tain h im. A ra t io n a l t rie r of f act cou ld hav e i nferr ed th at G ar ci a i ntent ion all y f le d f rom Off ic er

Smi th an d c oul d hav e found tha t Gar ci a knew

the off ic er

w as attempt ing to ar re st or deta in him. See Jack

son , 443 U .S. at 319; Ma nr

iqu e , 994 S.W .2d at 649

. T he fa ct f inde r could have fo und beyond a rea sona ble doubt that Gar ci a ev aded ar re st usi ng a v ehi cl e. See Jack son , 4 4 3 U

. S

. a t3 1 9

. W e ther efore c oncl ude t he ev ide nce w as leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t G a rc ia' s c onv ic ti on. Gar ci a's so le is sue is ov er ru led

. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 4th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.