Samuel Lyn Reaves v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
SAMUEL LYN REAVES, § No. 08-21-00186-CR
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 18th Judicial District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Johnson County, Texas
Appellee. § (TC# DC-F201700692)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State charged Appellant by indictment in Johnson County with driving while
intoxicated 3rd, and retaliation. 1 The jury found Appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated, a
third-degree felony offense enhanced by two prior convictions, and retaliation. 2 TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b), 36.06. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for a term of ninety-
nine years and twenty-five years respectively, to run concurrently.
1
This case was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the
Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals
to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
The State also indicted Appellant for attempted taking of an official weapon, but the jury found him not guilty of
this charge.
In two issues, Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support either of his
convictions. 3 We affirm. Because all issues are settled law, we issue this memorandum opinion.
TEX. R. APP. P 47.4.
Factual and Procedural Background
On July 27, 2017, around 5:00 p.m., Sergeant Justin Smith of the Johnson County Sheriff’s
Office was dispatched to a residence in the county to investigate a domestic disturbance between
Appellant and his mother. Smith concluded, based on his experience in law enforcement, that both
parties were intoxicated, and he arranged to separate the two in order to resolve the dispute. A few
hours later, Appellant returned to the residence, which resulted in a new disturbance and a 911 call
by a neighbor. The caller informed the police that Appellant was intoxicated and leaving the
residence in a white vehicle heading towards Alvarado.
Corporal Sean Walters of the Alvarado Police Department testified that he received a call
from dispatch describing a “possibly intoxicated” driver in a white vehicle leaving a disturbance.
He parked his patrol vehicle, waited for the described vehicle to pass him, and then began to follow
behind it. Walters, observed the vehicle swerving on the wrong side of the road, signaling without
completing a turn, and driving on the wrong side of the road. Walters initiated a traffic stop, and
the driver pulled over into the parking lot of a convenience store. Walters further testified
Appellant, the driver, exited the vehicle as soon as he pulled over. Walters questioned Appellant,
and he observed that Appellant had red, bloodshot eyes, slow speech, slow reactions, unsteady
balance, and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Appellant, informed Walters that he was a
diabetic and was experiencing an episode of high blood sugar. Walters testified he had experience
3
In addition to the brief filed by his appointed counsel, Appellant has filed his own pro se reply brief and three
motions which raise additional points of error. However, a defendant has no right to hybrid representation, and we do
not consider Appellant’s pro se filings. See Jenkins v. State, 592 S.W.3d 894, 902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
2
on medical calls involving people having diabetic episodes, but he did not believe Appellant was
having an episode because “the smell of somebody having a diabetic issue is usually like a sweet
smell as opposed to the metabolized alcoholic beverage smell.” He also testified that low blood
sugar, not high blood sugar as Appellant suggested, would more closely mimic the effects of
alcohol in his experience.
Walters attempted to administer a field sobriety test to Appellant, but he refused to comply.
Walters testified that Appellant struggled to answer any of his questions and continually lost his
balance, falling backwards Footage from Walters’s body-worn camera shows Appellant struggling
to maintain balance, being non-responsive to questions, and refusing to take a field sobriety test.
Based on the totality of the circumstances—Appellant’s erratic driving, demeanor, and refusal to
take a field sobriety test—Walters arrested Appellant for driving while intoxicated.
When Walters placed Appellant in his patrol vehicle, Appellant became “belligerent,”
threatening to beat and harm Walters. Walters testified that he believed Appellant was threatening
him because he was arresting Appellant. Walters transported Appellant to the jail where he was
taken to the book-in area, and Walters read Appellant his DIC-24 statutory warnings. Appellant
refused to provide a blood or breath sample, and Walters began the process of obtaining a blood
warrant. During this time, Appellant continued to threaten Walters verbally, saying that he was
“going to get [him.]”. When Walters attempted to leave the booking area, Appellant reached for
Walters TASER, attempting to remove it from his holster. Walters testified that Appellant was
unable to remove the TASER from his holster because it locks into place. The jailers restrained
Appellant, and Walters applied for the search warrant to draw Appellant’s blood, which a judge
granted. After Walters obtained the search warrant, Appellant was taken to the intoxilyzer room
in the jail to have his blood drawn. Walters testified that he remained with Appellant while a nurse
3
drew his blood. He took the vials of blood and the kit, followed the instructions on the kit, and
applied tamper seals to both vials and on the outside to seal it shut. He then personally transported
the test kit from the jail to the police department to be entered into evidence.
The State produced evidence establishing the chain of custody for Appellant’s kit. Dylan
Mansell, the Alvarado Police Department evidence supervisor, testified that he received the kit for
storage in the evidence locker before mailing it to the Waco DPS Crime Laboratory for testing.
Lindsay Hatfield testified she received the kit, analyzed one of the samples for alcohol, and
returned the kit back to the Alvarado Police Department. Hatfield testified that the analysis of
Appellant’s blood sample indicated a blood-alcohol level of 0.251.
Standard of Review
When reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal
conviction, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine
whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences, any rational juror could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
318–319 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App 2007). Our review gives
deference to the trier of fact, and the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness’s testimony
and the weight to be given to that testimony. Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2020). The jury may believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony. Id.Driving While Intoxicated
In Appellant’s first issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction for driving while intoxicated. Specifically, he contends the State failed to meet its
4
burden to establish Appellant’s blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit because the State did
not establish a chain of custody for the kit and that the “kit was never admitted into evidence.” 4
A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while
operating a motor vehicle in a public place. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a). An offense under
Section 49.04 is a felony of the third degree if the person has been previously convicted of driving
while intoxicated two times. Id. § 49.09(b)(2). The Penal Code defines “intoxicated” as “(A) not
having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol . . .
into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.” Id. § 49.01.
Here, the State produced direct evidence in the form of a lab report indicating Appellant’s
blood-alcohol level was 0.251, which exceeds the 0.08 limit. Id. The State also produced both
direct and circumstantial evidence that Appellant did not have the use of his “mental or physical
faculties.” Id. Walters testified he observed Appellant, driving a motor vehicle, on a public road.
He further testified Appellant was driving erratically, swerving into the oncoming lane of traffic,
and eventually driving on the wrong side of the road. Once Walters initiated the traffic stop, he
observed that Appellant smelled of alcohol, had difficulty standing, and was nonresponsive to
questions. Additionally, Appellant refused to submit to a field sobriety test, which Walters
testified, in his experience, could indicate Appellant was under the influence. Finally, Walters
testified based on his training, experience, and observations, Appellant had lost the normal use of
his mental faculties.
4
We note that Appellant’s assertion is incorrect—the kit was offered and admitted into evidence without objection.
Thus, to the extent that Appellant has raised an evidentiary challenge to the foundation for the kit, his argument is
waived. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).
5
Based on a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
a rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated.
See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19. We overrule Appellant’s first issue.
Retaliation
In Appellant’s second issue, he contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for retaliation. A person commits the offense of retaliation if the person “intentionally
or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by unlawful act: (1) in retaliation for or on
account of the service or status of another as a: (A) public servant, witness, prospective witness . .
. ” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06 (a)(1)(A). “The statute does not require that the threatened
retaliatory harm be imminent, nor does it require that the actor actually intend to carry out his
threat.” Brock v. State, 495 S.W.3d 1, 16 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.). Intent may be inferred
from acts, words, and conduct. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(25). Harm is defined as “anything
reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury . . . ” Id. § 1.07(a)(25).
The record reflects that Appellant threatened Walters on multiple occasions, saying he
would “beat” him. Audio from Walters’s dash camera reveals Appellant saying “just you wait,
I’m going to get you and beat [you]” as Walters places Appellant into the back of the vehicle.
During the booking process, Appellant again threatened Walters, saying he was “going to get
[him,]” and when Walters was leaving the booking area of the jail, Appellant attempted to take his
TASER. Based on the evidence and testimony, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could
interpret Appellants verbal comments and conduct as threatening to harm Walters in retaliation for
his arrest. See, e.g., Brock v. State, 495 S.W.3d at 18 (collecting cases). Appellants second issue is
overruled.
6
CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court, and all pending motions are denied.
SANDEE B. MARION, Chief Justice (Ret.)
December 22, 2022
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Alley, and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)
Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)
(Do Not Publish)
7