In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-26-00011-CR
MICHAEL ALLEN ANDERSEN, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 320th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 087125-D-CR, Honorable Steven Denny, Presiding
July 16, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Michael Allen Andersen, appeals from his conviction of the third-degree
felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle 1 and the resulting sentence of
seven years of imprisonment. By one issue, Appellant argues the evidence was
insufficient to show he intentionally fled from a person he knew was a peace officer
attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. We affirm.
1 TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(b)(2)(A).
BACKGROUND
Around two o’clock in the morning in early October 2024, Sergeant Veronica
Padilla was patrolling near the intersection of Hastings and Broadway in Amarillo, Texas.
She saw one vehicle stop at the four-way stop and then proceed down the roadway. She
then observed a second vehicle, later determined to be driven by Appellant, fail to come
to a complete stop at the intersection. She activated her emergency lights and began to
pursue him. She then also activated her siren after Appellant accelerated to more than
sixty miles per hour and passed the other vehicle in a no-passing zone. That vehicle
pulled over within a short distance, but Appellant continued forward for about a minute
and a half, making three turns into a nearby residential area before stopping and turning
his car lights off. During her testimony, Padilla noted there were points at which Appellant
could have safely stopped prior to the point at which he did so.
After Appellant stopped, he put his hands outside the driver’s window as directed
and then complied to step out of the car, get on his knees, and lay prone on his stomach.
He then obeyed instructions to stand up and walk backwards slowly toward Padilla.
Appellant was secured. By that time, Officer Klein had arrived, and both he and Padilla
noted the smell of alcohol coming from Appellant. 2
At trial, Appellant did not dispute that he was the driver or that he was pursued by
Padilla for a brief period. Rather, he challenged intent. He claimed he did not intentionally
flee from Padilla. The other car there that night was driven by Appellant’s girlfriend at the
2 Appellant was not convicted of a DUI offense, but the State did point out the possibility that
Appellant was driving while intoxicated and that could have motivated his fleeing from Padilla.
2
time (now wife). When Padilla activated her lights, the girlfriend thought she was being
stopped, so she pulled over. Padilla then passed her to pursue Appellant. Appellant
contends he was initially unaware Padilla was attempting to stop him. He said
approximately thirty seconds elapsed after Padilla activated her siren before Appellant
pulled over. Once stopped, he fully complied. Based on the foregoing, he claimed the
State had insufficient proof of his intent. Nevertheless, the jury found Appellant guilty as
charged, and punishment was assessed as noted.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
Due process requires the State to prove each element of the charged crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766, 772–73 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011). When conducting a sufficiency review, courts must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational factfinder could have
found each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The jury is responsible for judging the credibility
of the witnesses and can choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented.
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). When the record
supports conflicting inferences, we presume the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor
of the verdict and defer to that determination. Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448–49
(Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
3
To sustain Appellant’s conviction for evading arrest or detention, the State was
required to prove that Appellant (1) intentionally fled from Padilla, (2) knowing she was a
peace officer lawfully attempting to arrest or detain him, and (3) using a motor vehicle
while in flight. TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(a). See also Archuleta v. State, No. 07-17-00371-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3815, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 9, 2019, pet.
ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). “Fleeing is anything less than prompt
compliance with an officer’s direction to stop.” Id. at *7.
Application
At trial, the evidence demonstrated Appellant rolled through a stop sign. Padilla
activated her emergency lights. Appellant’s then-girlfriend saw the lights and immediately
pulled over, believing either she or Appellant was about to get a ticket. Appellant did not
pull over but instead, accelerated past his girlfriend’s car, passing in a no-passing zone.
Padilla activated her siren. Appellant still did not stop. Instead, he conducted three turns
into an adjacent residential area before stopping.
Appellant argues that this evidence is insufficient because the pursuit lasted a very
short time, he did pull over, and he fully complied with Padilla’s demands once stopped.
He also claims the evidence showed ambiguity as to whether Padilla was attempting to
stop his then-girlfriend or him, so he did not know Padilla was trying to pull him over when
he accelerated and drove away.
We do not agree with Appellant’s assessment of the evidence. First, there is no
particular method an officer must use to alert a person that the officer is attempting to
detain or arrest him. Trejo v. State, No. 03-24-00534-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6638,
4
at *10 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 27, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). In this case, Padilla was driving a marked police vehicle and activated her
emergency lights when she saw Appellant fail to completely stop at the stop sign. She
testified her vehicle was plainly visible behind Appellant after she pulled behind him.
Padilla activated her siren after Appellant passed his girlfriend’s car, making it clear she
was pursuing him. The jury could have concluded this was sufficient to make Appellant
aware she was attempting to lawfully detain him and for it to conclude Appellant
intentionally evaded her when he continued driving, making three turns into a nearby
neighborhood before stopping. See Archuleta, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3815, at *7 (finding
sufficient evidence that the appellant intended to evade the officer when he pulled away
in the van after the first encounter and continued driving for more than three blocks without
stopping when the officer was in pursuit with his lights flashing and sirens activated);
Lopez v. State, 415 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no pet.) (after
activation of lights and siren, the appellant continued traveling through a residential area
for approximately one and one-half minutes and 0.6 miles, making several turns before
pulling into his driveway). And, Appellant’s compliance with demands upon stopping does
not negate the evidence supporting his commission of the offense. See Day v. State, 614
S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (the “statute punishes those who refuse to submit
to lawful authority at the moment an officer attempts an arrest or detention”).
Further, we defer to the jury’s role in resolving conflicts in testimony, weighing the
evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences from the facts. Hopper v. State, No. 07-23-00327-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7179, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 7, 2024, pet.
ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729,
5
732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)). “We may not reweigh or substitute our judgment for that of
the factfinder.” Id. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the jury could have
reasonably found each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We
resolve the issue against Appellant.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Alex Yarbrough
Justice
Do not publish.
6