Opinion
No. 05-15-01400-CR
07-29-2016
AHMAD RASHAD HAWKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-30754-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Stoddart, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
Ahmad Rashad Hawkins waived a jury and pleaded not guilty to evading arrest. The trial court found appellant guilty of evading arrest. In accordance with a plea agreement between appellant and the State during the punishment phase, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years' imprisonment, probated for three years. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
John Edmonds, a certified Grand Prairie police officer, arrested appellant for evading arrest on May 10, 2014. Edmonds testified that as he observed traffic on Interstate 20 while stopped on the far right shoulder, appellant passed by him on a motorcycle. Appellant was not speeding at that time. Edmonds pulled out into traffic to follow appellant because he did not see a license plate on the motorcycle. Edmonds observed appellant weaving in and out of lanes of traffic. When Edmonds caught up to appellant, he activated his patrol car's flashing lights and siren. Appellant immediately sped away. Edmonds testified he chased appellant at speeds up to 120 mph for about four miles before appellant eventually stopped on the left shoulder of the road. Edmonds ordered appellant to get off the motorcycle and on the ground. Appellant said he did not see Edmonds or hear a siren, and had he known an officer was behind him, he would have pulled over immediately. Edmonds handcuffed appellant and waited for a backup officer. Edmonds testified other vehicles moved out of his path when he activated the lights and siren. Edmonds further testified he knew what you could and could not hear while wearing a helmet because he had been a motorcycle officer for seven years.
A video from the patrol car's dash cam was admitted into evidence and published to the court. The video showed Edmonds move from the right shoulder of the road to the far left lane after a motorcycle passed by him. The motorcycle moved from lane to lane weaving around other cars. When Edmonds got near the motorcycle, the driver accelerated and wove through traffic again. A car in front of the motorcycle moved over to the right side of the road when Edmonds activated the siren and flashing lights. Other vehicles also moved to the right as Edmonds stayed in the far left lane. The motorcycle continued moving around cars at a high rate of speed, but eventually stopped on the left shoulder after heavier traffic caused him to slow down.
Appellant denied that he fled from Edmonds. Appellant testified he did not hear a siren because he was wearing a helmet and the wind "makes a noise" in the helmet. Appellant said he did not know a peace officer was behind him, and he would have pulled over to the side immediately had he known an officer was behind him. Appellant acknowledged the motorcycle had a mirror on both sides, but he said he would have to lean over to the left or right to use them. Appellant denied he was speeding, but he stated, "I know I was riding fast."
APPLICABLE LAW
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We are required to defer to the jury's credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
To obtain a conviction for evading arrest or detention, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally fled from a person he knew was a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a) (West Supp. 2015).
DISCUSSION
In two issues, appellant argues the evidence does not support the allegation that he intentionally fled from Edmonds or that he knew a peace officer was trying to detain him. The State responds the record supports that the trial court found appellant's statements not credible and that appellant intentionally fled from a peace officer he knew was attempting to stop him.
There was conflicting evidence presented. However, it was the trial judge's role, as the fact finder, to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant fled from Edmonds. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction for evading arrest or detention. We overrule appellant's two issues.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE Do Not publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
151400F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-30754-K.
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 29th day of July, 2016.