Miguel Angel Monjaras Jr. v. the State of Texas
05-19-01465-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Officers observed a speeding, swerving gray Dodge; driver initially climbed into the backseat when stopped.
- Officer Logan contacted the driver; Officer Traughber approached front passenger (Monjaras).
- Traughber told Monjaras to remain in the vehicle; Monjaras began to exit and refused commands.
- Officers attempted to detain and handcuff Monjaras; he pulled away, struggled, and was forced to the ground and handcuffed.
- Monjaras was charged with resisting arrest, search, or transportation; a jury found him guilty; punishment was 180 days (suspended) and 12 months community supervision.
- On appeal Monjaras argued evidence was insufficient because officers were only detaining him (not effecting an arrest); the court reviewed under a hypothetically correct jury charge that included arrest, search, or transportation and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Monjaras' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence shows officer was "effecting an arrest" (or otherwise effecting a search/transportation) when Monjaras used force | Testimony shows officers only detained him and had not decided to arrest, so elements not met | Legal distinctions between detention and arrest are not dispositive; evidence shows Monjaras impeded officers’ duties (arrest/search/transport) | Affirmed: rational jury could find Monjaras used force to prevent effecting an arrest or a search; evidence legally sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 620 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (reaffirms due-process sufficiency standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Ramjattansingh v. State, 548 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (use hypothetically correct jury charge to test sufficiency)
- Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (consider all evidence and defer to jury credibility in sufficiency review)
- Finster v. State, 152 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (resisting may be proven by impeding arrest, search, or transportation)
- Sartain v. State, 228 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (forcibly obstructing a pat-down search can constitute resisting a search)
- Schrader v. State, 753 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988) (defining ‘‘effecting an arrest’’ as interference with the arrest transaction)