Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 11 Harris
County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2098298
consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Donovan.
HILL JAMISON, JUSTICE.
Lee Wayne Crofton appeals his conviction for resisting
arrest. A jury found appellant guilty, appellant pleaded true
to an enhancement paragraph, and the trial court assessed
punishment at 120 days in jail. In a single issue on appeal,
appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction. We affirm.
John Paul Zepeda with the Metropolitan Transit Authority
Police Department was the only witness to testify at trial.
Zepeda stated that on June 23, 2016, he was patrolling a
Houston transit station in his uniform when he observed
appellant lying on the grass near the station. According to
Zepeda, appellant "appeared to . . . either [be having]
a medical emergency or . . . be intoxicated, " was
incoherent, and was "kind of rolling and kind of
convulsing." Firefighters arrived on the scene shortly
after Zepeda arrived.
asked the firefighters to check appellant, and they
determined that he was not suffering from low blood pressure
or low blood sugar and was "okay." Zepeda said the
next step was to get appellant to the sobering center, which
is a place where people found to be intoxicated or under the
influence of drugs can be given a chance to "sleep off
whatever they've taken" rather than being arrested.
Zepeda opined that the sobering center was the best place for
appellant at that point to get him the help he needed, but
Zepeda further explained that if a person believed to be
intoxicated in public doesn't want to go to the sobering
center, the alternative is to arrest the person for public
then attempted to gain control of appellant by applying
handcuffs. However, as soon as Zepeda got the first handcuff
on appellant's left wrist, appellant began rolling or
twisting his body, preventing Zepeda from putting the other
handcuff on appellant's right wrist. Zepeda explained
that this put him (Zepeda) in a vulnerable position because
when a suspect starts swinging his arm with one handcuff on
it, the handcuff becomes a weapon.
to Zepeda, appellant kept his free hand out of Zepeda's
reach while rolling his body back and forth and pushing with
his body against Zepeda. Appellant appeared angry during the
encounter, and Zepeda told appellant that he was under arrest
for public intoxication. Zepeda eventually managed to get
appellant fully handcuffed with the help of two or three of
the firefighters. Zepeda stated that at the time of the
arrest, appellant was "obviously a danger to himself or
others in the state that he[ was] in."
found appellant guilty of resisting arrest. In his sole
issue, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support this finding.
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and
determine, based on that evidence and any reasonable
inferences therefrom, whether a rational jury could have
found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
318-19 (1979)). We consider all of the evidence adduced at
trial, whether it was admissible or inadmissible. Winfrey
v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We
do not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence
or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder.
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Because the jury is the sole judge of the
credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be given their
testimony, any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence
are resolved in favor of the verdict. Wesbrook v.
State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
obtain a conviction for resisting arrest, the State was
required to prove that appellant intentionally prevented or
obstructed a person he knew to be a peace officer from
effecting an arrest by using force against the peace officer.
See Tex. Penal Code § 38.03(a). To show that
appellant used force in resisting arrest, the State had to
prove that appellant used "violence or physical
aggression, or an immediate threat thereof, in the direction
of and/or into contact with, or in opposition or hostility
to, a peace officer." See Dobbs v. State, 434
S.W.3d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). An arrest is a
process that starts when the peace officer begins to make
efforts to arrest the suspect and ends once the officer's
efforts to restrain or control the suspect are completed.
See Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769, 772-73 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2000); Latham v. State, 128 S.W.3d 325,
329 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2004, no pet.). A conviction for
resisting arrest requires the force to occur after the ...