Gonzalez, Alex, PD-0741-15

On Nov. 23, 2012 deputies responded to an assault report at Christus St. Catherine Hospital; appellant Alex Gonzalez matched the suspect/vehicle description.
Deputies in uniform pulled into the hospital parking lot; one deputy (Laird) drew his firearm, shouted for Gonzalez to stop, and two patrol cars followed with emergency lights (and later a siren).
Gonzalez drove through the parking lot, over speed bumps, past stop signs, and made a U‑turn through a red light; the pursuit lasted roughly two minutes and was captured on a patrol-car video.
Gonzalez stopped only after a third patrol unit blocked the lot exit; he was arrested and charged with evading arrest with a motor vehicle (Tex. Penal Code § 38.04).
A jury convicted Gonzalez of the third‑degree felony; after pleading true to two enhancements he received 25 years’ imprisonment.
The First Court of Appeals affirmed; Gonzalez sought discretionary review arguing the court of appeals should have construed the reach of the evading-arrest statute because the facts (low speed, short distance, brief duration) do not establish the statutory offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gonzalez)	Held
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to show Gonzalez intentionally fled from a known peace officer while using a motor vehicle	Video and deputy testimony show lights/siren, verbal commands, and movement away from officers for ≈2 minutes through the lot, supporting intent to flee	The chase was low‑speed, short in distance and duration; the court of appeals should construe the statute's reach — these facts do not establish intentional flight	Court of Appeals affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational juror could find Gonzalez knew officers attempted to detain him and intentionally fled

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Delay v. State, 443 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. Crim. App.) (legal‑sufficiency review can require statutory construction of penal reach)
Wright v. State, 201 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. Crim. App.) (courts may construe statute to avoid absurd results)
Shipp v. State, 331 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plurality discussing scope of sufficiency review)
Lopez v. State, 415 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.) (fleeing includes anything less than prompt compliance; slow fleeing is still fleeing)
Griego v. State, 345 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.) (no specific speed/distance/duration required to show intent to flee)
Mims v. State, 434 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.) (elements of evading arrest under § 38.04)