COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-302-CR
LEONARD SINGER APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Leonard Singer appeals his conviction for evading arrest. We
affirm.
Fort Worth Police Officer Robert E. Stewart stopped appellant for running
two stop signs at the I-35/Lancaster Street underpass. As he radioed dispatch
to check appellant’s license, he learned that appellant had an outstanding arrest
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
warrant. While on the radio in his patrol car, Officer Stewart noticed that
appellant seemed to be reaching beneath his car’s front seat and was otherwise
moving in a way that caused the officer concern for his safety. He called for
back-up. Within minutes, Officer Kwang Nam arrived, and as the two officers
approached appellant’s car, appellant sped away, leading police on a chase
through downtown and ultimately crashing in the front yard of a house near
Highway 121.
A grand jury indicted appellant for evading arrest/detention enhanced by
prior felony convictions, and after a jury trial, appellant was convicted and
sentenced to thirteen years’ confinement with a ten-thousand-dollar fine.
In his sole point on appeal, appellant claims that the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting evidence that he had an outstanding warrant at the time
of the stop.
We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.2
Accordingly, we will uphold a trial court’s decision as long it is within the zone
of reasonable disagreement and is correct under any theory of the law
applicable to the case.3
2
… Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
3
… Id.
2
Appellant contends that evidence of the warrant should have been
excluded under Rule 404(b), which provides that:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove
the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such
as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . .4
In addition to its listing as a permissible use for evidence of other wrongs
or acts, generally, evidence of motive is always relevant and admissible to
prove that a defendant committed the offense alleged. 5 Moreover, motive
evidence can lead inferentially to intent.6
Appellant was tried for evading arrest or detention. A person commits
that offense when he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace
officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him.7 Thus, in this case, intent
is an element of the offense for which appellant was tried. Given evidence of
the outstanding warrant, the jury could reasonably infer that appellant acted
intentionally and that because of the warrant, he had a motive to flee the
4
… Tex. R. Evid. 404(b).
5
… Crane v. State, 786 S.W.2d 338, 349–50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
6
… See Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001);
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 387–88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op.
on reh’g).
7
… Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (Vernon 2003).
3
officers in order to avoid arrest.8 We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of appellant’s outstanding warrant.
Appellant’s sole point on appeal is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: September 24, 2009
8
… See Black v. State, No. 12-05-00130-CR, 2006 WL 2465636, at
*3–4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 25, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
4