Martin Herrera v. State, 08-17-00043-CR

Martin Herrera was charged with evading arrest or detention by use of a vehicle (felony, enhanced by two prior felonies); a related retaliation charge was dismissed after the jury deadlocked.
At trial the State called Patrol Officer Danny Conway and played dashcam video showing Herrera stop twice and then drive away twice while a marked police cruiser had emergency lights engaged.
Officer Conway approached Herrera after observing him leave a bar with lights off, followed Herrera, and positioned his marked cruiser behind Herrera with lights and spotlight on; Herrera drove off after an interim five-second stop and made an un-signaled turn before finally stopping.
Herrera admitted on scene he had been drinking and said, “I f**ked up. I’m drunk. I stole a car at the bar,” though subsequent investigation did not confirm theft.
Herrera appealed solely arguing the evidence was legally insufficient to prove he knowingly fled from a peace officer attempting to lawfully detain or arrest him.
The jury convicted on evading; the trial judge found the enhancement allegations true and sentenced Herrera to 60 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove elements of evading by vehicle	State: Video and officer testimony show Herrera knew officer was attempting to detain him and he intentionally fled by moving his vehicle after stops	Herrera: Officer’s testimony conceded he was not fleeing; movements were reasonable pulls to the side and not an attempt to evade	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational jury could find Herrera knew officer was attempting to detain him and that he fled (even by brief, slow movement)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard is sole sufficiency standard on review)
Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction; factfinder resolves credibility)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (cumulative force of circumstances may prove guilt)
Griego v. State, 345 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (distinguishable decision finding insufficiency where driver had minimal time to react and facts did not support knowledge)
Horne v. State, 228 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (fleeing includes anything less than prompt compliance with officer’s direction to stop)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (factfinder resolves testimony conflicts)
Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (jury may accept or reject witness testimony)