HAL KEITH WEATHERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 15, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01457-CR
............................
HAL KEITH WEATHERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-72925-LH
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices McClung, Lagarde, and Ovard
        Hal Keith Weathers was convicted in a bench trial of the offense of escape. Punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at fifteen years' confinement. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        J.W. Thomas, an Irving police officer, testified that on August 23, 1988, he stopped appellant for a traffic violation. He asked appellant for identification; appellant claimed to be Danny Ray Gillespie. He ran a computer check on the name appellant gave, but was unable to find a driver's licence connected with the name. Officer Thomas asked the woman in appellant's car for her name; she gave her name as Karen Weathers, and said she was appellant's wife. Two other officers arrived. Officer Thomas began to put handcuffs on appellant; appellant ran from the officers, but was apprehended shortly thereafter. Appellant was placed in the squad car and restrained with handcuffs, a seat belt, and leg restraints. The police inventoried appellant's car, and found a gun, a white cap with bullets inside, gloves, and a stocking mask. During the inventory, Officer Thomas saw appellant leave the police car and run across the road. The other two officers chased him; Officer Thomas remained at his car. When appellant was apprehended, he was taken to jail by the other officers. Officer Thomas also testified that he had arrested appellant on an NCIC report that there was a warrant for appellant's arrest for aggravated robbery.
        In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court's review is limited to determining whether, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Marroquin v. State, 746 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In circumstantial evidence cases, the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is rational only if the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Allen v. State, 651 S.W.2d 261, 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Any element of an offense may be proven by circumstantial evidence. McGaskey v. State, 451 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970).
        In order to prove the offense of escape in the present cause, the State was required to prove that appellant escaped from custody when he was under arrest for the offense of aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.07(a)(1) (Vernon 1989); Henderson v. State, 600 S.W.2d 788, 789 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). In the present cause, the indictment alleged that appellant had escaped while under arrest for the offense of aggravated robbery. The State did not prove by direct evidence that appellant was under arrest for aggravated robbery at the time he escaped; however, the circumstantial evidence sufficiently proved this element of the offense. The record reflected that appellant was placed under arrest by Officer Thomas for aggravated robbery. While the record is not clear as to the point at which he was placed under arrest for the offense, Officer Thomas testified that he did not chase appellant, and that the other officers apprehended appellant and took him to jail. Since Officer Thomas made the arrest, and had no contact with appellant after he escaped, it necessarily follows that the arrest for aggravated robbery occurred prior to the second escape. As a result, the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that at the time of his second escape, he was under arrest for the offense of aggravated robbery. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
881457F.U05
 
 
File Date[11-15-89]
File Name[881457F]