Alex Gonzalez v. State
Opinion
ACCEPTED
01-14-00434-CR
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
1/13/2015 10:45:19 AM
No. 01-14-00434-CR CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
In the
Court of Appeals
For the
First District of Texas FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS
At Houston HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/13/2015 10:45:19 AM No. 1368857 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
In the 339th District Court Of Harris County, Texas
ALEX GONZALEZ
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF
DEVON ANDERSON
District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
ERIC KUGLER
Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas
TBC No. 796910
kugler_eric@dao.hctx.net
JOHN LEWIS
ADETAYO ADEYIGA
Assistant District Attorneys Harris County, Texas
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: (713) 755-5826
FAX: (713) 755-5809
Counsel for Appellee
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ONLY IF GRANTED TO APPELLANT
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 39, the State requests oral argument only if oral argument is granted to the appellant.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES Counsel for the State:
Devon Anderson District Attorney of Harris County Eric Kugler Assistant District Attorney on appeal John Lewis; Adetayo Adeyiga Assistant District Attorneys at trial Appellant or criminal defendant:
Alex Gonzalez Counsel for Appellant:
Nicole DeBorde Counsel on appeal Gary Polland Counsel at trial Trial Judge:
Hon. Leslie Brock Yates Presiding Judge
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................i IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES ....................................................................i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1
REPLY TO APPELLANT’S SOLE POINT OF ERROR ......................................... 2 A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant evaded from the police in a motor vehicle. ............................................................2 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE ............................................. 6
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ...............................................................3 Burgess v. State, 14-13-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4823781 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 30, 2014, no pet.) ........................................................4 Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ...............................................................3 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307319 (1979) .........................................................................................3 Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) ...............................................................3 King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) .................................................................3 Rogers v. State, 832 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. App.—
Austin 1992, no pet.) ..............................................................................................4 Troff v. State, No. 01-00-01173-CR, 2002 WL 31087321 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ..........................................................................4
STATUTES TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04 (West 2010) .....................................................................3
RULES TEX. R. APP. P. 39....................................................................................................... i
iii
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The appellant was charged with evading detention in a motor vehicle committed on November 23, 2012 (CR – 13). He pled “not guilty” to the charge, and the case was tried to a jury (CR – 152). The jury found him guilty, and the trial court thereafter assessed punishment at 25 years in prison on May 22, 2014 (CR – 152). The appellant filed notice of appeal that same day, and the trial court certified that he had the right to appeal (CR – 156-157).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On November 23, 2012, J. Laird with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to the Christus St. Catherine Hospital in response to an assault call (RR. III – 12-13). He spoke with the victim and learned that the appellant was the suspect in the assault and would be returning to the hospital (RR. III – 13). When the appellant pulled up to the emergency room exit, Deputy Laird approached him in full uniform (RR. III – 15). Two other peace officers were behind the appellant in their patrol car with their emergency lights already flashing (RR. III – 14-15) (St. Ex. 1). Nevertheless, the appellant accelerated away and took off through the parking lot (RR. III – 15).
Deputy B. Luce was one of the officers in the patrol car, and he took over the pursuit of the appellant, which lasted for more than two minutes (RR. III – 22- 25, 26). Three patrol cars were involved in the chase (RR. III – 31). As Luce followed the appellant, he observed that the appellant failed to stop at a few stop signs as well as at a red light (RR. III – 25) (St. Ex. 1). The appellant finally stopped when he was surrounded by the officers and had nowhere else to go (RR. III – 31). The officers discovered that there was a one-or-two-year-old child in the appellant’s vehicle (RR. III – 26-27).
REPLY TO APPELLANT’S SOLE POINT OF ERROR The appellant claims in his sole point of error that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he evaded the police (App’nt Brf. 8-11). This issue lacks merit because any rational jury could have found the appellant guilty of evading based on the mountain of testimonial and direct evidence.
A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant evaded from the police in a motor vehicle.
The standard of review in the present case is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally or
knowingly fled from Deputy Luce in a motor vehicle while Luce was attempting to detain him (CR – 13); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04 (West 2010). The jury was the sole judge of the weight of the evidence under this review and could choose to believe all, some, or none of it. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Evidence can be legally sufficient for a conviction even if it is entirely circumstantial. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The standard of review for circumstantial and direct evidence is the same. Id. It is not necessary that every fact point directly and independently to the defendant’s guilt; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
In the present case, the evidence showed that the appellant was a suspect in an assault when he drove up to the hospital’s emergency room exit (RR. III – 12- 15). Deputy Laird approached the appellant in full uniform while other officers pulled in behind the appellant with their emergency lights flashing (RR. III – 14- 15). Nevertheless, the appellant took off and led the police on a chase that lasted until they were able to box him in (RR. III – 15, 22-25, 26, 31). Three patrol cars
were involved, and the appellant failed to stop at stop signs and a red light along the way (RR. III – 25, 31) (St. Ex. 1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Alex Gonzalez v. State (Alex Gonzalez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.