Frederick Valentino Amerine v. State
10-16-00160-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- On Jan. 26, 2015, Officer Alberto Sanchez (marked police car, uniform) observed a silver Chevy Impala with an expired registration and activated lights and siren to initiate a traffic stop.
- Amerine did not immediately pull over; he made turns, slowed, signaled, and ultimately drove into a driveway before stopping. He told Officer Sanchez he did not stop because he feared his car would be towed for expired registration.
- Officer Sanchez ordered the driver to stop over the radio/mic; Amerine continued driving and pointed forward instead of stopping.
- Police impounded/searched the vehicle and found a handgun in the glove compartment; Amerine was indicted for evading arrest with a vehicle and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- At trial the jury convicted Amerine on both counts; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence for evading arrest and, consequentially, for unlawful possession of a firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Amerine's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for evading arrest with a vehicle | Evidence did not show intentional flight; slow or non-violent driving is not fleeing | Lights/siren, officer direction, and Amerine’s continued driving (delayed compliance) support an inference of intentional flight | Affirmed: jury could infer intentional flight from circumstantial evidence and failure to promptly submit to officer’s show of authority |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful possession of a firearm | Vehicle search/impound was invalid if no evading conviction; without search, no gun evidence | Evading conviction is supported; impound/search validly led to discovery of firearm | Affirmed: because evading conviction is supported, possession conviction is also supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Texas Crim. App. 2007) (cumulative-evidence sufficiency test)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Texas Crim. App. 2007) (jury may draw reasonable inferences)
- Lopez v. State, 415 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (delayed or slow compliance can constitute fleeing)
- Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)