Opinion
No. 04-03-00115-CR.
Delivered and Filed: March 31, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 230th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court No. 924138, Honorable Belinda Hill, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice and Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Christopher Adams appeals the judgment convicting him of evading arrest and sentencing him to six months in a state jail facility. Adams complains the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree and affirm. Adams was charged with evading arrest after he fled a peace officer who attempted to arrest Adams on outstanding warrants. The officer discovered the warrants while detaining Adams for a parking violation. Adams contends the initial detention was unlawful and argues that all evidence supporting the evading arrest charge was fruit of the illegal detention and should have been suppressed. We disagree. We need not decide the legality of the detention. Discovery of the outstanding warrants removed any taint of the allegedly unlawful detention and authorized the officer to arrest Adams. See Fletcher v. State, 90 S.W.3d 419, 420 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.); Welcome v. State, 865 S.W.2d 128, 134 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, pet. ref'd); Reed v. State, 809 S.W.2d 940, 944-47 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, no pet.); accord Johnson v. State, 496 S.W.2d 72, 73-74 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973) (holding that even if defendant was illegally arrested, photograph taken after arrest and used to identify defendant would not be suppressed because taint of initial illegal arrest was attenuated by discovery of outstanding warrants). Moreover, Adams's flight from the officer attempting a legal arrest was a new and independent crime. Evidence of that crime did not exist at the time of the allegedly unlawful detention and thus could not have been obtained as a result of the detention. See Donoho v. State, 39 S.W.3d 324, 327 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd). The trial court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment.