NO. 12-16-00066-CR
lN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

 

T Y L E R, T E XA S
DARRAN WA YNE 0'NEAL, § APPEAL FROM THE 420711
APPELLA /vT
V. § JUD!C/AL DISTRrCT Co URT
mE sTA rE oF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § NA COGDOCHES CoUNTY, TExAs
MEMoRA ND UM 0P1N10N
PER CURIAM

Darren Wayne O’Neal appeals his convictions for driving while intoxicated and evading
arresl. Appellant`s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Amlers v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.Zd 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). We al`t`lrrn.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted for driving while intoxicated and evading arrest, both third degree
felonies as alleged.' Appellant pleaded "guilty" to the offenses and "‘true" to the enhancements,
and after the trial court properly admonished him and accepted his plea, the matter proceeded to
a jury trial on punishment At trial, the evidence showed that off-duty State Trooper Chad
Wilson witnessed a vehicle driving very slowly and erratically on a major highway at night near
Nacogdoches, Texas. At`ter passing the vehicle, 'l`rooper Wilson made contact with Trooper

John Henley, an on-duty trooper patrolling the highway, and recounted his observations

 

' See Tl-j.‘<. Pl-j.\'/\l, C<)Dl-i ANN. § 38.04(3), (b) (evading arrest in vehicle) (West 2016), §§ 49.04(a) (DWl),
49.09(b)(2) (DWl enhancements) (Wcst Supp. 20|6).

Shortly thereafter, Trooper Henley witnessed the vehicle`s erratic operation. followed it,
and initiated a traffic stop. The trooper made contact with Appellant. observed that he had
glassy, bloodshot eyes. and that he appeared unsteady when standing. Trooper l~lenley asked
Appellant if he had been drinking. and Appellant replied that he had been drinking earlier that
day. Appellant subsequently failed the standardized field sobriety tests. Trooper Henley began
to arrest Appellant. but he asked the trooper to let him go free and prevented lienley from
applying his handcuffs

Trooper Wilson, also present, attempted to intervene The troopers were unable to
handcuff Appellant, and Trooper Henley fell while unsuccessfully deploying his Taser.
Appellant returned to his vehicle while Trooper Wilson followed. Trooper Wilson reached
inside the vehicle and attempted to remove the keys. Simultaneously, Appellant started the
vehicle and sped away. Trooper Wilson narrowly avoided injury.

Off-duty Officer John Bell of the Nacogdoches Police Department happened to be
driving in the area and witnessed the fracas. As he began to call dispatch for assistance,
Appellant nearly struck Officer Bell’s vehicle while fleeing the scene. All the officers pursued
Appellant, who was traveling at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. Appellant performed a U-
turn and proceeded towards Nacogdoches, again traveling over 100 miles per hour. Appellant
sped through a red light nearly colliding with other vehicles. Shortly thereafter. Appellant
crashed his vehicle and began to flee on foot. However, several officers were able to subdue and
handcuff him. During an inventory search of Appellant`s vehicle, officers discovered a half-full
bottle of gin, along with a bottle of juice commonly mixed with gin.

Through his daughter, Alcoholic Anonymous sponsor, and coworkers. Appellant offered
evidence that he has since ceased drinking alcohol. He also offered the testimony and supporting
documentation from his “IN-HOM" alcohol monitoring device technician showing that he has
not ingested alcohol since the incident. Appellant testified in his own defense He admitted an
extensive criminal history in the early 19905, but stated that nearly two decades passed without
him performing any criminal acts. He explained that he began drinking heavily after his divorce.
which led to two DWls in 2014_ resulting in community supervision.2 Appellant testified that he

fled out of fear that his community supervision would be revoked and that he would go to prison.

 

z Appellant also had a 2007 conviction for DW|.

He also admitted to committing the offenses in this case and endangering the officers, the public,
and himself.

On the DWI count, the jury sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for five years and
assessed a $5,000.00 fine. On the evading arrest count, the jury sentenced Appellant to

imprisonment for seven years and assessed a $5,000.00 fine. This appeal followed.

ANALYsls PuRsuAN'r ToANDERs V. CAL/FoR/vm
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant`s counsel relates that he has reviewed the record and found no error to present
for our review. 1n compliance with Higlr v. Sta!e, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978). Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.‘ We have likewise reviewed the record for

reversible error and have found none.

CoNCLusroN

As required by Amlers and Smfford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also ln re Sclrulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the
appeal is wholly frivolous. Aecordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant's counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Sclrulman. 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35.
Should Appellant wish to seek review ofthese cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he
must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must

file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

 

‘ ln compliance with Kelly \'. Smle, Appellant`s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief`,
notified Appellant ot` his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex.
Crim, App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and
no pro se briefhas been filed.

within thirty days from the date of this court`s judgment or the date the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court. See 'l`t-;X. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See ln re Sclrulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered October 18, 2017.
l’anel consisted of Wor!hen, C.J., Hr{\'le, J., and Nee/ey. .l.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT ()F APPEALS DlSTRlCT ()F TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 18, 2017
NO. 12-16-00066-CR

DARRAN WAYNE G'NEAL,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE ()F TEXAS,
Appellee

 

Appeal from the 420th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. Fl42l348)

 

'l`HlS C/\USE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the

judgment

It is therefore ORDERED. ADJUDGED and DECREED that thejudgment

of the court below be in all things affirmed and that this decision be certified to the court

below f`or observance

By per curiam opinion.
l’am'/ cunsl`.rlur/ of Worl/ren, (`../.. Hr)_v/e, i/. and Neele)', J.

