Opinion
No. 05-18-00572-CR
05-28-2019
DENNIS EARL SIMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MA17-13580-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Bridges
A jury convicted appellant Dennis Earl Sims of resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced him to 180 days' confinement and imposed a $1,500 fine. In two issues, Sims argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction, and the trial court's punishment violates the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.
Sims represented himself pro se during trial. Prior to opening statements, Sims refused to plead guilty or not guilty. Sims identified himself as a Moorish American and based his arguments on the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship." Courts do not recognize claims for relief based on allegations of being a member of the Moorish National Republic. See In re Wallace-El, No. 13-18-00078-CV, 2018 WL 771935, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, Feb. 7, 2018, orig. proceeding). The trial court treated his "failure to give [jury] a plea in the case as a not guilty plea."
Background
On January 27, 2017, Officer Saysanasongkham (Say) was patrolling southeast Cedar Hill when he encountered Sims driving a maroon Nissan Maxima. When they stopped at a red light, Officer Say ran the license plate and discovered a warrant for the vehicle. He initiated a traffic stop, and Sims pulled over without incident. Sims initially refused to provide identification and repeatedly questioned why he was pulled over because he had committed no crime. Sims also immediately started recording the interaction with his cell phone. Not until his wife encouraged him to show his license did he acquiesce to Officer Say's request.
The parties referred to him as Officer Say during trial.
After Officer Say confirmed Sims's identify, he called for backup per officer protocol. He described Sims's behavior as "argumentative" and "annoyed."
Officer Say originally believed the warrant was from Louisiana, but Sims corrected him. Sims said the warrant was likely from Cedar Hill because of a lawsuit he had filed against the police chief involving a previous altercation with an officer in which Sims allegedly resisted arrest. Sims showed Officer Say papers referring to a pending lawsuit against the police chief. Officer Say knew of the recent altercation involving Sims through word of mouth. Based on Sims's history, Officer Say had a "feeling" Sims would try and resist arrest.
Officer Ryder arrived as back up and stayed with Sims while Officer Say confirmed the warrant. According to Sims, he told Officer Ryder that he suffered a stroke in May of 2016, and his arm would not go behind his back. Because of this medical condition, he asked Officer Ryder to place handcuffs, if required, in front.
Officer Ryder did not testify, and there is no body cam video of this alleged conversation.
Once Officer Say confirmed the warrants were from Cedar Hill and for Sims, he told Sims he was under arrest. Officer Say tried to put handcuffs on him, but he "started stiffening up both of his arms." Sims then curled up his right wrist so Officer Say could not grab the other arm and put it behind him. Officer Say repeatedly told Sims to stop resisting. Sims yelled he was not resisting and said he had a stroke that affected his arms. Officer Say admitted Sims was yelling as if in pain. By this time, two other officers were assisting Officer Say. "[T]hen we went to the ground, and he continued resisting by putting his arms underneath his body at that time." Officer Say told him to stop moving his hand.
Officer Say eventually handcuffed Sims's arms behind his back with the help of the two officers. Sims said, "You just helped me. Y'all just paid for some sh**." Once Sims was handcuffed, he calmed down and stopped yelling.
Sims was then transferred to the DeSoto City jail. Upon arrival, he requested to be checked by paramedics. He was transferred to an emergency room in Lancaster. After hospital staff released him, Officer Say transported him to the Dallas county jail. During this transfer, Sims hands were cuffed in front "because he kept complaining about this shoulder." Officer Say explained Sims's demeanor had changed, and he had calmed down to where they could have an "effective conversation."
During trial, the jury heard testimony from Officer Say and appellant. The jury also watched four videos of the incident: two from the dash cam perspective of two police cars at the scene and two from officer body cams. The jury found Sims guilty of resisting arrest, and the trial court sentenced him to 180 days' confinement and imposed a $1,500 fine. This appeal followed.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his first issue, Sims challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Specifically, he asserts he lacked the requisite intent to resist or obstruct the efforts of the police to effectuate their duties, and the State's circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The State responds the evidence was sufficient to support conviction.
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). We are mindful that the trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Sartain v. State, 228 S.W.3d 416, 424 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref'd). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that determination. Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The Texas Penal Code defines resisting arrest as follows: "[a] person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.03(a). Intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as acts, words, and the conduct of the appellant. Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Milazzo v. State, No. 05-16-01382-CR, 2018 WL 316723, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). The court of criminal appeals has held an appellant forcefully resists arrest when he "actively pull[s] away" when a police officer attempts to handcuff him. Finley v. State, 484 S.W.3d 926, 927-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
Sims argues the State's own evidence showed he provided the police with accurate information concerning the origins of the warrant and was willing to be arrested. He "had merely not wanted to suffer unnecessary pain at the hands of the police." Thus, he argues the jury could not reasonably speculate regarding his intent to resist arrest based on the "meager" circumstantial evidence.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows the following. Officer Say testified Sims never mentioned any medical problems during their discussions prior to his arrest. Officer Say never heard Sims asking him to wait to arrest him because of the commotion at the scene.
The dash cam video from Officer Say's car showed that while attempting to arrest Sims, Sims pulled his arm away from officers trying to handcuff him after one hand was behind his back. The other dash cam video showed Sims pulling his arm away and trying to walk from officers as they tried to arrest him. Neither video captured a clear view of what happened on the ground after they fell. However, Officer Say testified Sims's movements when they were on the ground prevented him from being able to arrest him, and he considered his interactions with Sims a struggle. Based on his training and experience, he believed Sims was resisting arrest. By trying to pull away, a rational trier of fact could have found Sims intended to obstruct Officer Say from effectuating an arrest. See Milazzo, 2018 WL 316723, at *4 (evidence sufficient to support evading arrest when defendant "scuffled" with officer and "pulled away" while officer attempted to regain control).
Further, the jury knew the underlying warrant involved another instance of resisting arrest. The jury could have reasonably inferred Sims intended to resist arrest again. Importantly, the jury heard Sims say on the video, "You just helped me. Y'all just paid for some sh**." The jury could have reasonably concluded Sims's statement indicated his motive for resisting arrest—the potential to help the underlying lawsuit against the police chief. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50 ("Motive is a significant circumstance indicating guilt."). And, as the judge of witness credibility, the jury was free to disbelieve a medical condition prevented his arms from going behind his back, particularly when the video showed Sims in a calmer state after he was arrested.
Accordingly, the State presented evidence a uniformed police officer commanded Sims to put his hands behind his back because he was under arrest. Sims failed to comply with the command, and chose to struggle against the officers' efforts to place him under arrest. Based on the surrounding circumstances of the arrest as described to the trier of fact, a rational factfinder could have reasonably inferred that Sims intended to resist arrest despite his statements to the contrary. See, e.g., Finley, 484 S.W.3d at 929; Sartain, 228 S.W.3d at 424-25 (evidence supported resisting arrest conviction when defendant flailed arms and required restraint by three officers). Because the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction, we overrule Sims's first issue.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
In his second issue, Sims contends the trial court violated the Eight Amendment by imposing a grossly disproportionate punishment. Sims did not object to his sentence at the time it was imposed or in a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. See Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190, 196 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref'd). Because Sims failed to object to his sentence at the time it was imposed or file a motion for new trial, he has not preserved anything for appellate review. Id. We overrule his second issue.
Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1
180572F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MA17-13580-M.
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Brown and Nowell participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered May 28, 2019