CEDRIC VAN WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion issued July 3, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01199-CR
............................
CEDRIC VAN WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MB07-49993-M
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Morris
        In this case, a jury convicted Cedric Van Williams of evading arrest or detention. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
 
        Dallas police officers Edward Tena and Aaron Glenn were on routine patrol at an apartment complex in northeast Dallas. A security guard at the complex advised the officers about suspected drug activity occurring in a breezeway. Tena walked toward the breezeway while Glenn remained in the patrol car. Tena saw appellant walking in the direction of the breezeway. Appellant turned around, looked at Tena, and then walked in the opposite direction from where he was originally going. Tena believed appellant's behavior was suspicious. He returned to the patrol car and told Glenn about seeing appellant. The officers decided to drive to the back of the complex and walk to the breezeway. As the officers were parking their vehicle, they saw appellant walking toward the breezeway. When appellant saw the patrol car, he ran from the area.
        Both Tena and Glenn then ran after appellant. Glenn yelled, “Stop, Dallas Police.” Appellant did not stop. Appellant ran up a stairwell to a third-floor apartment. As Glenn ran up the stairs, he heard a door slam. Glenn stopped running. He stood on the stairwell between the second and third floors and waited for Tena to catch up. As Glenn stood there, appellant came out of apartment 509 and walked to Glenn. Glenn handcuffed appellant and began to search him for weapons.
        Tena testified that when he saw appellant the first time, he intended to detain appellant to talk to him about drug activity in the breezeway. Glenn testified that appellant's behavior was suspicious because people who see police officers normally do not run from them.
Discussion
 
        In his two issues on appeal, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. He specifically contends the State failed to prove the officers were attempting to detain him lawfully. To obtain a conviction for evading arrest or detention, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally fled from a person appellant knew was a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a) (Vernon 2003).
        In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether any 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); Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 191-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A review of the evidence for legal sufficiency does not involve a re-weighing of the evidence or a substitution of the jury's judgment. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The fact-finder is the exclusive judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Harvey v. State, 135 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.).
        In a factual sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the fact-finder's verdict of guilt was rationally justified. See Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 87 (2007). Unless the record clearly reveals a different result is appropriate, we must defer to the fact-finder's determination concerning what weight to be given to contradictory testimony. Lancon v. State, No. 0182-07, 2008 WL 2081638, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2008).
        In this case, the jury was presented with evidence that Tena and Glenn were investigating a report of illegal drug activity in a breezeway at an apartment complex when they encountered appellant walking to the breezeway. When he saw Tena, appellant turned and walked in the opposite direction. The second time appellant saw the officers, he ran away from them as they identified themselves as police and asked him to stop. The officers intended to detain appellant and question him about the reported illegal drug activity. Both officers believed appellant's behavior was suspicious because people do not normally run from police officers.
        Viewing the evidence under the proper standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25 (2000). We resolve appellant's two issues against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JOSEPH B. MORRIS
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
071199F.U05