Roderick James Lide v. State of Texas--Appeal from 385th District Court of Midland County

Opinion filed September 6, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

   No. 11-06-00110-CR

__________

   RODERICK JAMES LIDE, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 685th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR30949

O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Roderick James Lide of burglary of a building and evading arrest with a vehicle and assessed his punishment at twelve years and six months confinement for each offense. Lide challenges his verdict with two issues, contending that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient. We affirm.

On July 13, 2005, Carrie Ann Farrington and Lide checked into the Travel Inn. Lide left the room around 10:00 p.m and returned between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Early the next morning, Martin Rodea learned that someone had broken into his restaurant, Mis Amigas. Meat, that was packaged in ziplock bags and labeled in Spanish, was missing from the freezer, and money was missing from the cash register. That same morning, Detective Manuel Beltran went to the Travel Inn to investigate an unrelated burglary and saw a green Ford Taurus in the parking lot. He knew that a green Ford Taurus had been seen transporting a large television during a recent burglary. Detective Beltran examined the Taurus=s roof and saw paint damage and deep, fresh gouges.

Detective Beltran and his partner, Detective Rosa Maria Rodriguez, set up surveillance to see who would leave in the Taurus. A male and female got into the car, drove a short distance, and stopped at a dumpster. The detectives parked ten feet behind the Taurus, activated their emergency lights, and ran the car=s tag number. The female exited the Taurus, and Detective Rodriguez approached her. When the female saw Detective Rodriguez, she quickly returned to the Taurus. The male, who was driving, turned around, saw the detectives= car, and then took off at a high rate of speed.

The detectives pursued the Taurus. But when they observed the driver disregarding traffic signals and not slowing down for a mother and young child crossing the street, they abandoned the chase. The Taurus was later located B abandoned B in Midland County. Police officers searched the car and identified Farrington as a suspect based upon identification found in the car. She was located and arrested shortly thereafter. Lide was subsequently identified and was arrested that night.

The car was searched shortly before noon. The police found clothing, purses, and a large quantity of cold, packaged meat in the trunk. The meat was in ziplock bags and was labeled AR-E-S,@ which is Spanish for beef. Detective Beltran broadcast their findings over the radio. The officer investigating the Mis Amigas burglary responded that a large amount of meat had been recently taken from that restaurant. Detective Beltran contacted the Rodeas, and they identified the meat as their own.

Lide contends initially that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury=s burglary verdict. To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, 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. Jacksonv. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). To determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence supporting the verdict is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the conflicting evidence. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Lide contends that the evidence is insufficient because there is no direct evidence, such as eyewitnesses or fingerprints, connecting him to the Mis Amigas break-in and because the circumstantial evidence does not establish that the meat in his trunk was taken from the restaurant. Martin Rodea testified that his restaurant had been closed for two weeks for vacation but that he and his wife went by it around 6:00 p.m. the night of July 13 and that everything appeared normal. The following morning at approximately 8, he received a call from his brother. He then went to the restaurant and saw that a rock had been thrown through the glass in the door and the drive-through window left open. This evidence would allow the jury to conclude that the break-in occurred sometime between 6:00 p.m. on July 13 and 8:00 a.m. on July 14. The Travel Inn was close to Mis Amigas. Farrington testified that Lide left their hotel room at approximately 10 p.m. and returned between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Martha Laticia Rodea testified that their meat was packaged in ziplock bags, was labeled in Spanish, and was placed in the freezer. The meat found in Lide=s car was cold, was in ziplock bags, and was labeled in Spanish. Martha Rodea recognized her handwriting on the ziplock bags. This evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury=s verdict, and Lide=s first issue is overruled.

Lide next argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury=s verdict that he evaded arrest with a vehicle because there was insufficient evidence that he was fleeing from a person he knew was a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him. Lide argues that Detectives Beltran and Rodriguez were in an unmarked car and in plain clothes, that there was no evidence that either displayed a badge, and that they did not have probable cause to arrest him when they pulled up behind Lide=s car.

The State was not required to establish probable cause. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 38.04 (Vernon 2003) makes it an offense to intentionally flee from a person that the defendant knows is a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him.[1] Police officers may temporarily detain an individual if they have a reasonable suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is or has occurred, some suggestion to connect the detainee with the unusual activity, and some indication that the activity is related to a crime. Spight v. State, 76 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Detective Beltran knew that a green Ford Taurus had been involved in a recent burglary and that, as part of that burglary, a large television had been transported on the car=s roof. When he saw a green Taurus in the Travel Inn parking lot with recent roof damage, he had cause to believe that this was the car involved in the burglary, and when Lide left in that car, Detective Beltran had a reasonable suspicion that Lide might be involved in illegal activity.

The evidence also sufficiently established that Lide knew Detectives Beltran and Rodriguez were police officers and that they were attempting to detain him. The detectives were not driving a marked patrol car, but their vehicle had wigwag headlights,[2] a red and blue flashing light in the front windshield, and red and blue flashing lights in the back glass. Detective Beltran turned these lights on when he pulled up behind Lide=s car. Lide turned around in his car, made eye contact with the detectives, sped off, and told Farrington that he was in trouble during the ensuing pursuit. Issue two is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RICK STRANGE

JUSTICE

September 6, 2007

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

[1]The indictment alleges that Detective Beltran was attempting to Aarrest and detain@ Lide, but the trial court correctly instructed the jury that an offense occurred if Lide fled from a peace officer who was attempting to Aarrest or detain@ him.

[2]Wigwag headlights are high beam headlights that flash intermittently.