Carlos Rene Vidana v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

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