Nathan Garcia v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00021-CR
NATHAN GARCIA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 140th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-417369, Honorable Douglas Freitag, Presiding
July 25, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Do you get less intoxicated by drinking light beer? Is driving a car at night, without
headlights, at a high rate of speed, in a residential neighborhood, less deadly if traffic is
light? Appellant, Nathan Garcia, appeals from his conviction for evading arrest, with an
affirmative finding on use of a deadly weapon, to-wit: a motor vehicle, and two-year
sentence.1 Following an open plea of guilty to the charge of evading arrest, he pleaded
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A).
not true to the deadly weapon allegation. By his sole issue, he questions whether the
evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that he used a deadly weapon, a motor
vehicle, during the commission of the offense of evading arrest. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2019, Appellant drove to a Lubbock car wash, threatened victims,
and sped away. Lubbock Police Officer Martinez responded to the disturbance call,
located Appellant’s vehicle, and attempted to stop him. He fled, which lead to a high-
speed chase through a residential area. A Department of Public Safety helicopter was
nearby and pursed Appellant. Because Appellant fled at a high speed, at night, without
headlights, in a residential neighborhood, the ground pursuit was temporarily halted.
Appellant eventually parked, fled on foot, and was arrested.
ANALYSIS
In considering a sufficiency challenge to the deadly weapon allegation, the Court
must review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found
beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was used or exhibited as a deadly weapon.
Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). To hold evidence legally
sufficient to sustain a deadly-weapon finding, the evidence must demonstrate the
following: (1) the object meets the statutory definition of a deadly weapon; (2) the deadly
weapon was used or exhibited during the transaction from which the felony conviction
was obtained; and (3) other people were put in actual danger. Drichas v. State, 175
S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Brister, 449 S.W.3d at 494; Mayes v.
State, 536 S.W.3d 102, 109 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2017, pet. ref’d). A motor vehicle may
2
be found to be a deadly weapon if the vehicle, “in the manner of its use or intended use
is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 1.07(a)(17)(B); Drichas, 175 S.W.3d at 798; see also Brister, 449 S.W.3d at 494;
Couthren v. State, 571 S.W.3d 786, 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). To sustain a deadly-
weapon finding, the evidence must show (1) the object in question (here, Appellant’s
vehicle) meets the definition of a deadly weapon; (2) the deadly weapon was used or
exhibited during commission of the offense; and (3) other people were put in actual
danger. Brister, 449 S.W.3d at 494.
Appellant challenges only the third factor of the deadly weapon—other people
were put in actual danger. He admits there is evidence of speeding and driving without
activated headlights in a residential area.
In Drichas, the defendant drove his truck recklessly while evading arrest. He drove
the wrong way on a highway during a high-speed chase, failed to yield to oncoming traffic,
committed traffic offenses, and turned into a construction zone where he knocked down
barricades. 175 S.W.3d at 797–98. Although the testimony established there was only
“some” traffic during the chase and Drichas had neither attempted to strike motorists nor
force them to take evasive action, the Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence
legally sufficient to support a deadly-weapon finding. Id. at 798.
In this case, both DPS helicopter footage and Officer Martinez’s testimony offered
several instances of the manner in which Appellant used his vehicle which was capable
of causing death or serious bodily injury. The helicopter footage of the pursuit played for
the jury showed instances of other vehicles in the residential neighborhood as Appellant
3
ran multiple stop signs, at a high rate of speed, without activated headlights.
Notwithstanding that traffic was light during Appellant’s high-speed chase, traveling
through a residential area at night, without activated headlights at a high rate of speed
did pose actual danger, and was not merely hypothetical. See id. We conclude there
was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s deadly-weapon finding. Appellant’s sole
issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Alex Yarbrough
Justice
Do not publish.
4