Samuel Ricardo Anaya, Jr. v. State
12-16-00094-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Nighttime encounter: Sergeant Angell (in marked patrol car and uniform) responded to a burglary call and saw two men near a fence; his vehicle lights were on but emergency lights were not.
- Angell identified himself as police and commanded the men to stop; one fled into shadows and was not found.
- Appellant Samuel Anaya carried an item wrapped in a shirt (two new, packaged hair clippers) and, when Angell exited his car, attempted to distance himself and raised a hand in a stiff-arm motion.
- Angell pursued and repeatedly ordered Anaya to stop; Anaya accelerated when Angell sped up and did not comply until officers caught and handcuffed him, resisting being placed on the ground.
- State charged Anaya with evading arrest or detention, enhanced by two prior convictions; jury convicted and trial court found enhancements true, sentencing Anaya to 15 years.
Issues
| Issue | Anaya's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove evading arrest or detention | Anaya contends he was backing away reasonably and did not know the person was an officer | Angell was in uniform, in a marked car, identified himself, commanded Anaya to stop, and Anaya fled and resisted | Conviction upheld: evidence legally sufficient to show intentional flight from officer |
| Due process violation by conviction/sentence | Anaya argues the encounter was flawed and a 15-year sentence is harsh/unconstitutional | Evidence was sufficient and sentence falls within statutory range after enhancement | Overruled: no due process violation; sentence lawful within statutory range |
| Prosecutor's improper closing argument | Anaya claims the prosecutor suggested guilt was foregone and invited jurors to consider punishment | State argues comments emphasized jury's role; trial court corrected and instructed jury on presumption and sole duty to decide guilt | Overruled: court found instruction cured any impropriety and presumed jury followed instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sets Jackson sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
- Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (a conviction supported by legally sufficient evidence does not violate due process)
- Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (sentencing within statutory range does not violate due process)
- Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (permissible areas of jury argument defined)
- Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial-court instructions generally cure improper argument)
- Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation of error requirements for appellate review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard under due process clause)