James David Luna v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00518-CR

James David LUNA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas ,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CR-0185

Honorable Juanita Vasquez-Gardner , Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini , Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone , Justice

Karen Angelini , Justice

Rebecca Simmons , Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 5, 2006

AFFIRMED

James David Luna was found guilty of evading detention while using a vehicle and was sentenced to two years of confinement in state jail. His sentence was then suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for two years. Luna appeals, arguing that his conviction was not supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

Shortly after 11:00 p.m. on November 26, 2003, James David Luna was driving a modified Chevrolet truck on Loop 1604 in Bexar County. Luna's truck was elevated several feet above what would be considered normal, had questionable power steering, a driver's side mirror that folded in against the body of the truck, no overhead lights, and no rearview mirror. The rear window of the truck was darkly tinted and was obstructed by the lid of a tool box.

At the same time Luna was traveling eastbound on Loop 1604, Kirk Shannon, a uniformed Bexar County Sheriff's Deputy, was traveling westbound in a marked patrol car. As the two vehicles approached each other, Luna swerved his truck into the oncoming lane of traffic. To avoid hitting Luna's truck, Officer Shannon was forced to take evasive actions. He then executed a U-turn, activated his patrol car's emergency strobe lights, and began following Luna's truck. Shortly after activating the patrol car's lighting system, he also activated the car's siren. According to Officer Shannon, although the speed limit was sixty miles per hour, Luna was traveling at approximately forty-five miles per hour. As he was following Luna's truck, Officer Shannon saw Luna's truck again veer across the double yellow striped lines separating the lanes of traffic and then swerve back onto the shoulder of the road. Farther down the road, while still using the patrol car's lights and siren, Officer Shannon activated the patrol car's spotlight.

Despite Officer Shannon's attempts to stop Luna, Luna continued driving his truck down the road. He turned right onto Campbellton Road and continued south. As Luna made an overly wide turn to the south, a car approaching from the north was forced to quickly apply and lock its brakes in order to avoid hitting Luna's truck. As Officer Shannon continued to follow Luna on Campbellton Road, Luna slowed to approximately fifteen miles per hour. Luna finally stopped his truck after pulling into the driveway of his home.

After Luna stopped his truck in the driveway, Officer Shannon exited his patrol car and approached Luna's truck. Officer Shannon announced his presence and saw Luna slumped over in the driver's seat, with a small dog on his lap. Officer Shannon opened the door of Luna's truck and assisted Luna in exiting the vehicle. According to Officer Shannon, Luna did not behave in a belligerent manner and was compliant with his requests. Officer Shannon then handcuffed Luna and placed him in the patrol car. At this point, members of Luna's family approached the scene and according to Officer Shannon, they were cooperative. After giving Luna's keys to one of the assembled family members, Officer Shannon left the scene with Luna in the back seat of the patrol car. According to Officer Shannon, after being transported to the Bexar County Jail, Luna was offered the standard field sobriety tests, which he refused.

After a trial, Luna was found guilty of evading detention while using a vehicle. He appeals, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction.

Sufficiency

In a legal sufficiency review, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and then determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 729-30 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 481 (2005). In a factual sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light and will set the verdict aside only if the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or the contrary evidence is so strong that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been met. Id. at 730-31.

A person commits the offense of evading arrest if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer while the peace officer is attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 38.04 (a) (Vernon 2003). The offense is a state jail felony if the person uses a vehicle while he "is in flight." Id. 38.04 (b)(1). Here, Luna argues that there is no evidence that he intentionally fled from a peace officer. We disagree.

Officer Shannon was forced to pursue Luna for approximately four miles. Officer Shannon drove directly behind Luna with the patrol car's strobe lights, siren, and spotlight activated. At no point did Luna pull to the side of the road or make any timely effort to respond to the officer's attempts to stop him. During this time, Luna was driving in such a way as to almost cause a collision with another motorist. Luna only came to a stop when he arrived at his place of residence. We hold that there is legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer Luna's intent.

Luna also argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to prove that he intentionally fled from a peace officer. For support, Luna points to his own testimony and testimony from other witnesses that he has difficulty hearing. He also emphasizes his testimony at trial that he was unaware of being followed until he pulled into his driveway. Luna did eventually admit, during his testimony at trial, that on the night in question he saw a spotlight behind his truck; however, he claimed that he did not stop because he did not know the intent of whomever was following him. And, Luna testified that he never saw any flashing lights and that Officer Shannon, when giving his testimony, had lied about flashing his patrol car's lights. Whether Luna or Officer Shannon was testifying truthfully, however, was a credibility question for the jury. When contradictory testimonial evidence turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, we must defer to the jury. See Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Given Officer Shannon's testimony that he followed Luna's truck for four miles while flashing his patrol car's strobe lights, sounding the siren, and using the spotlight, a jury was rationally justified in inferring Luna's intent beyond a reasonable doubt. See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We, therefore, hold that the evidence is factually sufficient.

Conclusion

Because the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Karen Angelini , Justice

Do not publish