Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00652-CR Juan Eduardo CARRIZALES, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-09-08373-MCRAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal III, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2026 AFFIRMED A jury convicted Juan Eduardo Carrizales of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and the trial court assessed punishment at four years’ imprisonment. The only contested question at trial was identity: whether Carrizales was the man who drove a black Tahoe away from a Maverick County sheriff deputy and then fled on foot. Carrizales renews that challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Because a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver, we affirm. 04-25-00652-CR BACKGROUND The State charged Carrizales with one count of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. He pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried to a jury. Deputy David Garcia of the Maverick County Sheriff’s Office testified that on August 31, 2020, he was dispatched to patrol the area of Pino Street after dispatch advised that Carrizales was at the location in violation of a protective order and was threatening his girlfriend and her family with serious bodily injury. When Deputy Garcia arrived, he observed a black Tahoe parked near the residence. As he passed the vehicle, he recognized the driver as Carrizales. Deputy Garcia testified that he knew Carrizales from prior law-enforcement encounters, including face-to-face interactions in which he had spoken directly with him. He also identified Carrizales in court. After recognizing Carrizales in the Tahoe, Deputy Garcia made a U-turn and attempted to make contact. The Tahoe immediately accelerated, turned through residential streets, and ran a stop sign. Deputy Garcia then activated his emergency lights and pursued the vehicle. The Tahoe eventually stopped. The driver—wearing a gray shirt and black shorts—exited the vehicle and fled on foot. Deputy Garcia testified that he pursued the man on foot and repeatedly ordered him to stop. The man kept running. Deputy Garcia lost visual contact with the suspect during the foot pursuit and returned to the location where the Tahoe had come to a stop. No other person exited the Tahoe. No one was found inside the vehicle when he inventoried it. Deputy Garcia’s dash-camera video depicted the black Tahoe near the residence, the ensuing vehicle pursuit, and the suspect exiting the vehicle. His body-camera video showed his exit from the patrol unit and the foot pursuit. Deputy Garcia acknowledged that he did not see the suspect’s face during the foot pursuit. But he testified that he had already identified Carrizales when he passed the Tahoe on Pino Street and observed the suspect’s side profile as he exited the -2- 04-25-00652-CR vehicle. Deputy Garcia testified that there was no doubt in his mind that the fleeing suspect was Carrizales. Carrizales’s girlfriend, Glenda Ruiz, also testified for the State. She testified that she and Carrizales argued earlier that morning, around 9:00 a.m., and that the argument became physical. She did not call law enforcement. Deputies from the Maverick County Sheriff’s Office nonetheless came to her residence that afternoon, believing she had contacted them, and she briefly spoke to them around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. She told them that Carrizales had been calling repeatedly, was angry about losing a work trailer, and had been making threats. She next saw Carrizales around sunset, when he came to her home and asked for the keys to her Tahoe. She gave them to him, and 10 to 15 minutes later she found him in her backyard. Carrizales told her that he had sent his friend—a man she knew by the nickname “Terror”—away in the Tahoe so the two of them could spend time together. On direct examination, Ruiz acknowledged that she would say anything to protect Carrizales. She testified that the man seen running in the video was not Carrizales but appeared to be “Terror,” though she admitted she could not be certain and explained that she identified him only because Carrizales told her it was Terror. Ruiz also confirmed that she and Carrizales were arrested together on September 4, 2020, in violation of the protective order. The defense called one witness. Deputy Marcus Palacios testified that he interviewed Ruiz at approximately 6:00 p.m. on August 31 at her home. He also participated in the foot pursuit of the man who fled from the black Tahoe. Palacios testified that during the pursuit Deputy Garcia radioed that an orange Avalanche in the area was honking and had possibly picked up Carrizales. Other deputies stopped the Avalanche, and Palacios responded to that location. Carrizales was not found in the Avalanche. -3- 04-25-00652-CR The jury found Carrizales guilty. The trial court assessed punishment at four years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION In his sole issue on appeal, Carrizales challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. 1 Standard of Review We review the sufficiency of the evidence by considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). We defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations and presume it resolved any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict. Martin v. State, 635 S.W.3d 672, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). We do not substitute our judgment for the jury’s. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.04. In conducting our review, we consider the cumulative force of all the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). 2 Sufficiency of the Evidence The State was required to prove that Carrizales (1) intentionally fled, (2) from a peace officer, (3) knowing the person was a peace officer, (4) knowing the officer was attempting to arrest or detain him, (5) that the attempted arrest or detention was lawful, and (6) that he used a -4- 04-25-00652-CR vehicle while in flight. TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A); see also Nicholson v. State, 682 S.W.3d 238, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (listing elements of the “evasion statute”). Carrizales does not dispute that the driver of the Tahoe fled from a lawful attempted detention by a peace officer. He challenges only the evidence identifying him as that driver. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Carrizales was the driver of the Tahoe and the man who fled from Deputy Garcia. Garcia testified that he personally recognized Carrizales when he passed the Tahoe on Pino Street based on prior face-to-face encounters and again observed the suspect’s side profile when he exited the vehicle. Garcia further testified that no other person exited the Tahoe and that no one was found inside the vehicle after the pursuit. Although Garcia lost sight of the suspect during the subsequent foot chase, he testified that he had no doubt the fleeing man was Carrizales. The jury also heard conflicting testimony from Glenda Ruiz, Carrizales’s girlfriend, who suggested that “Terror” had been driving the Tahoe and testified that the man depicted on video was not Carrizales. However, Ruiz admitted that she could not be certain of the man’s identity, that her belief was based on what Carrizales had told her, and that she would “say anything” to protect Carrizales. The jury was free to credit Garcia’s identification testimony and reject Ruiz’s account. See Martin, 635 S.W.3d at 679; Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 608. Considering the cumulative force of the evidence—Garcia’s prior familiarity with Carrizales, his identification of Carrizales as the driver before the pursuit began, his observation of the suspect exiting the Tahoe, the absence of any other occupant in the vehicle, and the corroborating video footage—the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Carrizales -5- 04-25-00652-CR was the person who fled from law enforcement. See Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 608. We overrule Carrizales’s sole issue on appeal. CONCLUSION Finding no error, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Velia J. Meza, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -6-