Robert Infante v. State, 397 S.W.3d 731

Infante was convicted by a jury of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and sentenced to eight months in prison.
Officers Sotelo and Cummins paced Infante’s vehicle after he accelerated at a red light for a forty mph zone, culminating in Infante stopping about 0.8 miles after the light changed.
The officers testified Infante was traveling 55 mph in a 40 mph zone and used pacing to establish speeding before stopping him.
Infante was found to have marijuana odor and baggies in the vehicle after the stop.
Infante challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the Article 38.23 jury instruction, voir dire comments, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court.
The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting all four points of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for speeding-based detention	Infante argues the pacing didn’t create reasonable suspicion.	State argues officers’ pacing and estimates supported speeding.	Evidence sufficient to sustain detention beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 38.23 jury instruction availability	Infante seeks an instruction due to contested pacing facts.	Affirmative evidence of a disputed fact did not arise from cross-examination.	Instruction properly denied.
Comment during voir dire on weight of evidence	Trial court’s remarks violated Article 38.05 by implying eyewitness strength.	Context shows remarks did not deprive fair trial.	No reversible error; trial fair.
Ineffective assistance of counsel claim	Counsel failed on multiple fronts, including suppression and objections.	Record shows reasonable strategy; no deficient performance established.	No ineffective assistance; trial counsel not deficient.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (merits-based sufficiency review; credibility bound to jury)
Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (sufficiency standard; evaluate elements as charged)
Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (hypothetical correct jury charge; element-based analysis)
Calton v. State, 176 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements of evading arrest with a vehicle)
Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reasonable-suspicion factors; training/experience allowed)
Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (credibility and weight for jury to resolve)
Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (consideration of surrounding voir dire context)
Powell v. State, 252 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (fundamental-error and impartiality considerations)
Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (fundamental-error standard; improper comment may be reversible)