PRIEST, LARRY v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0822-23

LARRY PRIEST, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
DE WITT COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Appellant was convicted of two counts of evading arrest in a motor vehicle. TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04. In count two, it was alleged that Appellant, on or about July

15, 2019, evaded arrest from Deputy James Cockroft. In a separate count, it was alleged

that on the same day Appellant evaded arrest from Trooper Danny Zaro. The trial court
Priest — 2

sentenced Appellant to ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on both

counts. The sentences were imposed concurrently. 1 Appellant appealed.

On appeal, Appellant contended that his two convictions for evading arrest in a

motor vehicle were a violation of the double jeopardy protection against multiple

punishments. The court of appeals disagreed and affirmed the convictions. Priest v. State,

No. 13-20-00560-CR, 2022 WL 2251821 (Tex. App. —Corpus Christi June 23, 2022, pet.

granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The court of appeals concluded that

the face of the record did not support a double jeopardy violation because the record did

not clearly reflect a double jeopardy violation. Id. at *7-8.

Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the conclusions of

the court of appeals. We granted review. However, after considering the parties’ briefs and

the record, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. We therefore

dismiss Appellant’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted.

Delivered: December 11, 2024

Do not publish

1
Appellant was convicted of two counts of deadly conduct and two counts of evading arrest with a vehicle. Appellant
was sentenced to 365 days confinement in county jail for each of the two counts of deadly conduct. The court of
appeals only addressed the evading arrest convictions because Appellant waived his double-jeopardy challenge to the
deadly conduct convictions due to inadequate briefing.