Case Name: Robert DELGADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1986-09-24
Citations: 718 S.W.2d 724
Docket Number: No. 0620-85
Parties: Robert DELGADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: WHITE, J., joins in this dissent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 718
Pages: 724–730

Head Matter:
Robert DELGADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 0620-85.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Sept. 24, 1986.
Peter Justin, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Roe Morris, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TEAGUE, Judge.
Demetria Jackson, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, after a bench trial, was convicted of committing the offense of evading arrest. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 38.04, which provides that a person commits the offense of evading arrest if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to arrest him. It is an exception to the application of this section if the attempted arrest is unlawful. The trial judge assessed punishment at 10 days' confinement in the Harris County Jail, probated, and a $25 fine.
The appellant challenged the validity of the information on file in this cause through a motion to quash, asserting therein that the information was fundamentally defective because it "fails to allege an offense against the laws of the state of Texas"; it "fails to state the manner of the lawful arrest of the defendant"; "It does not state what the lawful arrest was for"; and it "does not state that the defendant was aware and knew that an arrest was being attempted."
The Houston First Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant, that the information was subject to her motion to quash, and ordered her conviction reversed and the information dismissed. See Jackson v. State, 690 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1985). Finding that the court of appeals correctly decided the issue, we will affirm its judgment.
We granted the State's petition for discretionary review in order to determine whether the offense of evading arrest requires that the charging instrument must allege, inter alia, that the defendant knew that the police officer was attempting to arrest him. See Tex.Cr.App. Rule 302(c)(2). As previously pointed out, the offense of evading arrest occurs if a person intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to arrest him. If it is an essential element that the accused must know the peace officer is attempting to arrest him, in addition to knowing that that person is a peace officer, then of course, if such element is omitted from the pleading, the offense of evading arrest has not been properly pled.
The information in this cause alleges in pertinent part that the appellant "did then and there unlawfully intentionally flee from J. Lane, hereafter styled the Complainant, a peace officer lawfully attempting to arrest the Defendant, knowing that the Complainant was a peace officer."
The court of appeals agreed with the appellant that her "knowledge that a police officer [was] trying to arrest [her] is an essential element of the offense of evading arrest under the statute", and ordered her conviction reversed and the information in this cause dismissed.
In Hazkell v. State, 616 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), a majority of a panel of this Court in an opinion authored by Judge McCormick ruled that it is not necessary to plead in a charging instrument that alleges the offense of evading arrest that the accused knew that the attempted arrest is lawful, i.e., it is not necessary to plead "that the accused 'knew' he did not come within the exception," which provides: "It is an exception to the application of this section (V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 38.-04) that the attempted arrest is unlawful." (205). Judge Odom, who filed a dissenting opinion in Hazkell, supra, asserted therein that "it is essential that the defendant knows the peace officer [was] attempting to arrest him [even though it need not be alleged that the accused knew that the attempted arrest was lawful]." (205). It thus appears to us that what the defendant in Hazkell, supra, perceived as error actually was not error, for the reasons stated by Judge McCormick. However, it also appears to us that the error that Judge Odom found was actually not the error that the defendant claimed existed. No motion for rehearing was filed in Hazkell, supra, so the en banc Court was not given the opportunity to pass on whether Judge Odom was correct in his interpretation of the statute.
Johnson v. State, 634 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), another panel majority opinion that was authored by Judge Dally, in which no motion for rehearing was filed, held that the evidence adduced in that cause was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for evading arrest. Judge Dally, implicitly, if not expressly, also held that it is not necessary to allege that the defendant knew that the peace officer was attempting to arrest him. However, the other two members of the panel, Judge W.C. Davis, who filed a concurring opinion, and Judge Teague, who filed a dissenting opinion, would have held that knowledge that the peace officer was attempting to arrest the accused is an element of the offense of evading arrest.
Although we find that all of the opinions filed in Hazkell and Johnson are extremely helpful to us in resolving the issue that is before us, whether the State must plead in an evading arrest case that the accused had knowledge that the peace officer was attempting to arrest him, given what was actually before the panels to resolve in those cases, they are not exactly on point.
However, we find that what Judge Odom stated in the dissenting opinion that he filed in Hazkell, what Judge W.C. Davis stated in the concurring opinion that he filed in Johnson, what Judge Teague stated in the dissenting opinion that he filed in Johnson, and what Justice Bass, who authored the opinion by the court of appeals in this cause, stated therein, are exactly on point with the issue that we must decide.
Justice Bass correctly pointed out in the opinion that he authored for the court of appeals in this cause that "The gravamen of the offense is the evasion of an arrest, not the evasion of a police officer." 690 S.W.2d at 688. We also find that Justice Bass was correct when he stated the following: "The language in section 38.04 is clear and unambiguous, and there is only one reading consistent with grammatical structure of the statute: a defendant can be convicted of evading arrest only if he is 'aware that the person from whom he is fleeing is a peace officer' who is 'attempting to arrest him. ' We conclude that the defendant's knowledge that a police officer is trying to arrest him is an essential element of the offense of evading arrest under the statute." (688). We also find that in essence Justice Bass was repeating in a different way what Judges Odom, W.C. Davis, and Teague had previously stated.
We also conclude and hold as the court of appeals did that from the plain language of the statute it is essential that a defendant know the peace officer is attempting to arrest him. This element is missing from the information in this cause. Because it is missing from the information, the informa tion is rendered fundamentally defective for failing to allege all of the elements of the offense of evading arrest.
To the extent of any conflict, Johnson, supra, is expressly overruled. The panel majority opinion of Hazkell, supra, is not overruled; however, it should not be read to mean that an appellate court is prohibited from determining, as unassigned error, whether a charging instrument states an offense.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
. Because we are not dealing with a notice defect, but are instead dealing with the issue whether the information in this cause actually states the offense of evading arrest, we need not concern ourselves with-this Court's recent decisions of Adams v. State, 707 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), and Opdahl v. State, 705 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).