Samuel Augustus Virgo v. the State of Texas, 12-21-00078-CR

Samuel Augustus Virgo was indicted for evading arrest while using a vehicle (third-degree felony) and alleged using a deadly weapon (motor vehicle); he pled not guilty.
Deputies Hogue and Glover (Smith County Fire Marshal’s office) observed Virgo speeding on a motorcycle, activated lights and sirens, and attempted a traffic stop.
Witnesses testified Virgo weaved through traffic, "split" between vehicles, accelerated to pull away, made u‑turns, and twice drove into oncoming lanes while trying to avoid being stopped.
Detective Dollison blocked an intersection with his truck (lights and siren activated); Virgo crashed after braking hard and was arrested.
At trial Virgo testified he did not realize the trucks were law enforcement (thought they were fire trucks), denied intent to evade, but admitted prior guilty pleas to evading on foot (2008 and 2013).
Jury found Virgo guilty and found use of a deadly weapon; sentenced to nine years and a $5,000 fine. He appealed raising (1) legal sufficiency and (2) admission of prior convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict for evading arrest	State: testimony and circumstantial evidence (lights/sirens, looking back, splitting traffic, u‑turns, entering oncoming lanes) show Virgo knew officers and intentionally fled	Virgo: he didn’t know vehicles were law enforcement (thought they were fire trucks), helmet limited hearing, no intent to evade	Affirmed. Applying Jackson/Brooks, a rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt based on the officers’ testimony and Virgo’s evasive maneuvers
Admissibility of prior evading‑by‑foot convictions	State: prior convictions admissible under Rule 404(b) to rebut Virgo’s claim of mistake/lack of intent (shows knowledge and intent to flee)	Virgo: prior convictions were propensity evidence and improperly prejudicial under Rule 404(b)/Rule 403	Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion: prior acts were relevant to rebut mistake, probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction and harmless‑error analysis supported affirmance

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt sufficiency standard on review)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (directs Jackson standard application in Texas sufficiency review)
Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (presumption that jury resolved conflicting inferences for prosecution)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (framework for admitting extraneous‑offense evidence and Rule 403 balancing)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (uses for 404(b) evidence and balancing approach)
Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (trial court rulings on extraneous‑offense relevance fall within zone of reasonable disagreement)
Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admissibility rulings)