 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinsey v. State9/30/1999
ication. Scott v. State, 914 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.).
Evidence presented shows that appellant was speeding and driving erratically through a residential neighborhood, fled from the police, and finally stopped when he lost control of the vehicle and hit a culvert. It also shows that appellant was loud, boisterous, combative, verbally abusive to the officers, and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Both officers formed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated. At the police station, appellant refused to take a breathalyzer test. This testimony, considered in the light most favorable to the verdict, is legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction for driving while intoxicated. See Annis v. State, 578 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Scott, 914 S.W.2d at 629-30; Dumas, 812 S.W.2d at 615.
Appellant's sole point of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
Page 1 2 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|