Dan Dwayne Taggart v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court of Taylor County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Dan Dwayne Taggart

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-01-00285-CR C Appeal from Taylor County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted appellant of failure to identify and assessed his punishment at 179 days confinement and a fine of $1,999.[1] We modify and affirm.

In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for an instructed verdict. A challenge to the ruling on a motion for instructed verdict is in actuality a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), cert. den=d, 499 U.S. 954 (1991). In reviewing claims of legal sufficiency, this court follows the standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); and Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). We must review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Officer Patrick Perez with the Abilene Police Department testified that, on March 8, 2000, at approximately 11:40 p.m., he stopped a vehicle in which appellant was a passenger. Officer Perez contacted the driver of the vehicle and then went to contact appellant. Officer Perez testified that he asked appellant for some identification and that appellant gave him a Social Security card with the name APaul Nance@ and indicated that he was Paul Nance. Officer Perez asked appellant for identification with a picture on it. Appellant looked through his wallet, and Officer Perez noticed a driver=s license renewal form with the name AJohn Martinez.@ Appellant then told Officer Perez that he was John Martinez. Officer Perez asked appellant to continue looking for identification with a picture, and appellant found identification with his correct name and photograph. However, appellant told Officer Perez that he was not Dan Taggart. Officer Perez also testified that appellant indicated that he was Ricky Lynn Johnson.

Officer Perez testified that he returned to his patrol car to call for backup and to run a driver=s license check. Officer Perez stated that, as he was running the driver=s license check, he saw appellant get out of the car and run. Officer Perez got out of his patrol car, ran after appellant, and yelled for appellant to stop. Officer Perez caught appellant and placed him in handcuffs. Officer Perez testified that he asked appellant why he ran and that appellant responded that Ahe had warrants.@ Officer Perez then asked appellant his real name, and appellant told him that he was Dan Taggart.

A person commits the offense of failure to identify if he Aintentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth@ to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested or detained the person. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 38.02(b) (Vernon 1994). The offense is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown at trial that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 38.02(d) (Vernon 1994). A fugitive from justice means Aa person for whom a valid arrest warrant has been issued.@ TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 38.01(5) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Appellant specifically argues that the State did not produce any evidence of a valid arrest warrant to support a finding that he was a fugitive from justice.

The State did not introduce the warrant into evidence; however, Officer Perez testified that appellant told him that there were outstanding warrants against him. Officer Perez also testified that he ran a check on appellant=s driver=s license information and that he was aware of the warrants before appellant told him about them. Officer Perez testified that he validated the warrants with the dispatcher after the warrants Acame up@ on his computer screen. Appellant=s objection to Officer Perez=s testimony about information received from the dispatcher was sustained; however, appellant did not request an instruction for the jury to disregard the testimony. When an objection is made and sustained but no motion is made to strike the answer or to instruct the jury to disregard the statement, the testimony is before the jury and part of the record. See Rodriguez v. State, 903 S.W.2d 405, 409-10 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 1995, pet=n ref=d). We find that a rational jury could have found that appellant committed the offense of failure to identify while a fugitive from justice. Appellant=s sole point of error is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is modified to reflect that the jury convicted appellant of both evading detention and failure to identify and assessed punishment at confinement in jail for 179 days and a $1,999 fine for each offense.

W. G. ARNOT, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

February 21, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.

[1]The jury also convicted appellant of fleeing to elude detention; however, appellant does not appeal from that conviction.