William Bryan Finley, Ill v. State
449 S.W.3d 145
Tex. App.2014Background
- Officers went to Finley’s home to arrest his son‑in‑law on a warrant; Finley answered, was uncooperative, and called 911 claiming a false warrant.
- Warrant officer Connor arrived; officers decided to arrest Finley for hindering the son‑in‑law’s apprehension after Finley continued to refuse to cooperate.
- Officers Connor and Rollins attempted to handcuff Finley; they testified Finley clenched, pulled his arms to his abdomen, pulled away, resisted being turned, and required two officers and a takedown (and a taser) to secure him.
- Finley and defense witnesses testified he did not use force and merely refused to cooperate; facts were disputed at trial.
- The trial court convicted Finley of resisting arrest (Tex. Penal Code § 38.03) and placed him on community supervision; Finley appealed raising insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Finley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove resisting arrest (use of force "against" an officer) | Officer testimony showed Finley forcefully pulled his arms away, clenched, turned, required two officers to restrain, and resisted—constituting force against officers | Finley asserted only passive noncooperation (pulling hands to his abdomen, tensing) which is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute "use of force against" an officer | Affirmed: viewing evidence in favor of the verdict, a rational factfinder could conclude Finley used force (forceful pulling away) against officers, so evidence was sufficient |
| Proper legal standard for "use of force against" a peace officer | The State relied on cases (including Dobbs guidance) that force directed "at or in opposition to" an officer—forceful pulling away can meet that standard depending on circumstances | Finley argued passive resistance (refusal, pulling in) does not satisfy the statutory requirement; dissent relied on Sheehan and urged a narrower reading | Court applied Dobbs and related authorities: force must be directed at or in opposition to the officer; here the surrounding facts supported an inference of forceful pulling away, so standard met |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to factfinder on credibility and inferences)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (sufficiency standards and review principles)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (interpreting "using force against" as force directed at or in opposition to officer)
- Pumphrey v. State, 245 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.) (holding forceful pulling away can support resisting‑arrest conviction)
- Raymond v. State, 640 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App.) (earlier case distinguishing force directed toward officer from actions to get away)
- Sheehan v. State, 201 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.) (view that passive noncooperation may be insufficient for resisting arrest)