 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cook3/5/2002
Assigned on Briefs February 5, 2002
The Defendant, Michael Joseph Cook, was convicted of driving under the influence , second offense. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days and required him to serve six months of that sentence in the local jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
David H. Welles, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which David G. Hayes and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ., joined.
OPINION
On October 14, 2000, the Defendant and some friends began drinking around 6:30 p.m. The group drank beer outside a service station and at a local bar until approximately midnight, when they, among others, began to loiter outside a local convenience store. The Defendant stated at trial that during the course of the evening he consumed seven beers. However, he claimed that the last beer he consumed was at approximately 10:30 p.m. As a lark, someone took the Defendant's truck and moved it to a parking spot a short distance away from the convenience store. The Defendant became angry and began to walk home. He then saw where his truck was parked, got in, and drove off. At approximately 1:00 a.m., some fifteen minutes later, witnesses saw the Defendant enter the convenience store parking lot at 50 to 60 miles per hour. William Riddle testified at trial that the Defendant looked intoxicated. The Defendant lost control of his truck as he roared through the parking lot and collided with the truck in which Mr. Riddle and his fiancé sat.
When State Trooper Kevin Curtis arrived on the scene, the Defendant was still in his truck, and the trooper noticed the Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol and was unsteady exiting the truck. The Defendant told the trooper that he did not wish to perform any field sobriety tests, but he would take a breath analysis test at the police station. According to the trooper, the defendant "said he didn't want to take any field sobriety tests, he'd had too much, he just wanted to go on to jail." Trooper Curtis observed the Defendant for 20 minutes at the jail and then administered the breath test. The Defendant's alcohol level was .18.
At trial, the Defendant contended that he was not intoxicated, but "lost his temper," sped through the parking lot, and was unable to control his vehicle. The Defendant argued that the breath analysis test was in error.
SUFFICIENCY
The Defendant first contends that the evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e) prescribes that " indings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Evidence is sufficient if, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tenn. 2000). In addition, because conviction by a trier of fact destroys the presumption of innocence and imposes a presumption of guilt, a convicted criminal defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was insufficient. See McBee v. State, 372 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tenn. 1963); see also State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 105-06 (Tenn. 1999); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. 1992
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|