John Wayne Haskins, III v. the State of Texas
This text of John Wayne Haskins, III v. the State of Texas (John Wayne Haskins, III v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00039-CR
John Wayne HASKINS, III, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR8543 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 21, 2026
AFFIRMED
BACKGROUND
On December 3, 2022, the appellant, John Wayne Haskins, III, was arrested for evading
arrest with a vehicle, a third-degree felony. On September 28, 2023, a grand jury returned a true
bill of indictment against Haskins. On November 18, 2024, a jury trial was conducted. At its
conclusion of the proceedings, the jury found Haskins guilty of evading arrest or detention with a 04-25-00039-CR
motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced Haskins to four years confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In his sole issue on appeal, Haskins argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to
support the conviction. Specifically, he contends the State failed to establish the essential elements
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
1. Standard of Review
Evidentiary sufficiency challenges are reviewed by considering the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of facts could have found all the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 448 S.W.3d 418, 425
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). While each fact
need not point directly and independently to the appellant’s guilt, the cumulative force of all the
incriminating circumstances must be sufficient to establish the conviction. Dobbs v. State, 434
S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
“The jury is the sole judge of the credibility and weight to be attached to the testimony of
witnesses.” Dunham v. State, 666 S.W.3d 477, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (internal quotation
marks omitted). As such, the jury’s verdict will stand “unless it is found to be irrational or
unsupported.” Id.
2. Essential Elements for Evading Arrest with a Vehicle
In this case, Haskins’s indictment 1 alleged that “while using a vehicle, [he] intentionally
fle[d] from a person . . . [that he] knew was a peace officer who was attempting lawfully to arrest
1 Haskins’s indictment also included an additional allegation to enhance his punishment: that before the commission of the offense Haskins “was convicted of the felony of ASSUALT-PUBLC SERV-BI.” We will not review the sufficiency of the enhancement since Haskins does not challenge them on appeal. See Burks v. State, No. PD-0992-
-2- 04-25-00039-CR
and detain [him].” Thus, Haskins was charged with violating section 38.04 of the Texas Penal
Code. See TEX. PEN. CODE § 38.04.
Section 38.04 of the Penal Code provides that it is a third-degree felony for (1) a person to
(2) intentionally flee (3) from a peace officer (4) with knowledge he is a peace officer (5) with
knowledge the peace officer is attempting to arrest or detain him (6) the attempted arrest or
detention is lawful, and (7) he uses a vehicle while in flight. TEX. PEN. CODE § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A);
see also Nicholson v. State, 682 S.W.3d 238, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (discussing the elements
of § 38.04).
“A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to
a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause
the result.” TEX. PEN. CODE § 6.03(a). “Direct evidence of the requisite intent is not required.”
Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Instead, juries “may infer intent from any
facts which tend to prove its existence, including the acts, words, and conducts of the accused.”
Id. (citing Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)).
In this case, the requisite knowledge required under § 38.04 requires the defendant know a
police officer is attempting to arrest them but they “refuse[] to yield to a police show of authority.”
Redwine v. State, 305 S.W.3d 360, 362 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d).
“Evidence that a police officer is asserting authority and attempting to arrest or detain an individual
includes use of emergency lights and sirens, pointing to a driver to pull the vehicle over, and
issuing verbal commands.” Matthews v. State, No. 01-15-01100-CR, 2017 WL 491285, at *3 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 7, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(citing Duvall v. State, 367 S.W.3d 509, 513 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, pet. ref’d)). Moreover,
15, 2017 WL 3443982, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 28, 2017) (not designated for publication) (holding that appellate courts should only review legal sufficiency of elements challenged on appeal).
-3- 04-25-00039-CR
fleeing is “anything less than prompt compliance with an officer’s direction to stop, and fleeing
slowly is still fleeing.” Lopez v. State, 415 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no
pet.) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3. The Evidence Presented Was Legally Sufficient to Support the Jury’s Verdict
In its case in chief, the State proffered the testimony of one witness: Deputy Laura Mendez-
Elias. At trial, Mendez-Elias testified that on the night in question, she initiated the traffic stop
after noticing the registration for Haskins’s vehicle was expired. Mendez-Elias positioned her
vehicle behind Haskins and activated her emergency lights and siren. Mendez-Elias’s dash camera
footage—which was admitted into evidence—captured Haskins continue to drive after Mendez-
Elias initiated the traffic stop. The video further shows Haskins temporarily stopping in the center
turn lane located in the middle of the roadway prior to driving off again. Deputy Elias testified that
after Haskins’s vehicle came to a stop, she witnessed the driver’s side window “lower[] down all
the way.” Due to this, she “sounded off the sirens again” and “gave [Haskins] demands [on her
patrol vehicle’s intercom system] to make sure that he heard [her] in case he hadn’t prior to that.”
Despite this show of force, Haskins “proceeded into the roadway” and continued driving again for
approximately one minute until an assisting sheriff’s deputy blocked Haskins’s path of travel,
forcing him to “c[o]me to a complete stop.”
Haskins testified in his defense stating that he felt that someone was following him and
noticed that “their headlights were very close to the back of [his] vehicle, blinding [him].” When
he initially stopped, Haskins noticed that the vehicle was a “silver Tahoe that had no logo on it or
nothing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Wayne Haskins, III v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-wayne-haskins-iii-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp4-2026.