Court Opinion

ID: 9440253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 08:08:12.500133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:18.416926
License: Public Domain

In The
                                Court of Appeals
                       Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                         No. 07-23-00055-CR

                           CARLOS RENE VIDANA, APPELLANT

                                                 V.

                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 372nd District Court
                                   Tarrant County, Texas1
              Trial Court No. 1696178D, Honorable David Scott Wisch, Presiding

                                          August 1, 2023
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Carlos Rene Vidana, Appellant, challenges a jury verdict finding him guilty of

evading arrest with a vehicle.2 By one issue, Appellant asserts that the evidence was

insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

       1  This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Second Court of Appeals by a docket
equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
       2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04.
                                       BACKGROUND

       Former Sansom Park Police Department officer Efrain Balderrama testified that

while on patrol in a marked vehicle on July 24, 2021, he observed a black Cadillac run a

stop sign. Officer Balderrama pulled behind the vehicle. The driver of the Cadillac, later

determined to be Appellant, then ran a second stop sign. Officer Balderrama activated

his emergency lights and siren but the Cadillac did not stop; instead, it sped up. As the

officer continued his pursuit, he observed the driver run through multiple stop signs and

red lights, narrowly avoiding collisions with other vehicles. After covering roughly twenty

miles in twenty-five minutes, during which time other law enforcement agencies provided

assistance and a helicopter joined the pursuit, the Cadillac came to a stop when it ran out

of gas.

       The jury found Appellant guilty of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and

found that he used the vehicle as a deadly weapon. The trial court found the habitual

offender notice to be true and sentenced Appellant to forty years’ confinement.

                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by examining all of the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether, based on that

evidence and reasonable inferences from it, 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, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893,

912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility

of the evidence, and a reviewing court may not reevaluate the weight and credibility of

                                             2
the evidence so as to substitute its own judgment for that of the factfinder. Dewberry v.

State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (en banc). We presume that the jury

resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution.

Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

                                         ANALYSIS

       A person commits the offense of evading arrest or detention if he intentionally flees

from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him and

uses a vehicle in flight. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A). In his sole issue

on appeal, Appellant asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to

support his conviction. Noting that the dash cam video of the chase does not begin until

after Appellant has proceeded through the first stop sign, Appellant contends that the

officer’s statement that he observed Appellant run the stop sign and the police report

indicating that Appellant “failed to make a complete stop” is insufficient to establish the

lawfulness element of the attempted arrest or detention.

       Here, the evidence shows that Officer Balderrama observed Appellant run through

one stop sign. Then, shortly after he began following Appellant, Officer Balderrama

observed Appellant commit additional traffic violations. The officer testified that Appellant

was traveling at a rate above the posted speed limit and that Appellant drove through

multiple stop signs and red lights. The jury also viewed the dash cam video of the chase,

which showed Appellant violate several traffic laws.

       The evidence of Appellant’s acts that were observed by Officer Balderrama

supported the jury’s conclusion that he had a lawful reason to stop Appellant’s vehicle.

                                             3
See Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (State has burden to

show that officer had an objective basis for stop; subjective intent is irrelevant to

determination of reasonable suspicion); see also Throneberry v. State, 109 S.W.3d 52,

58 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). Moreover, “even if the initial attempt at

detention is unlawful, the suspect may be stopped or arrested for criminal acts which he

commits while attempting to avoid the officer.” Pickens v. State, 159 S.W.3d 272, 274

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005, no pet.) (citing Blount v. State, 965 S.W.2d 53, 54–55 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d)). Thus, even if the officer had no lawful reason

to detain Appellant prior to the car chase, a lawful reason arose once Appellant violated

traffic laws while being pursued by law enforcement. See id.

       We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that

Appellant intentionally fled from police officers who were attempting to lawfully arrest or

detain him. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a).

                                       CONCLUSION

       We overrule Appellant’s sole issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                        Judy C. Parker
                                                           Justice

Do not publish.

                                            4