 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Whaley5/21/2003
appellant's sentence of confinement to thirty days. The court also ordered the appellant to serve thirty days in confinement for the assault conviction but ordered that it be served concurrently with her sentence for DUI. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain her conviction for DUI and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to an excessive amount of confinement.
II. Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The appellant first contends that the State adduced insufficient proof at trial to sustain her conviction for DUI. In order to successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction, the appellant must demonstrate to this court that no "rational trier of fact" could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). In other words, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are resolved by the trier of fact and not the appellate courts. State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990).
Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-401(a)(1) (1998) provides:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state . . . while: (1) Under the influence of any intoxicant . . . .
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the appellant was too intoxicated to drive and that she was in an automobile on a road in the state of Tennessee. It is further undisputed that the appellant did not drive the vehicle. Therefore, the correctness of the appellant's conviction rests upon whether she was "in physical control" of the vehicle while she was intoxicated.
In State v. Lawrence, 849 S.W.2d 761, 765 (Tenn. 1993), our supreme court determined that Tennessee should follow "the totality of the circumstances approach in assessing the accused's physical control of an automobile for purposes." The circumstances to be considered by the trier of fact are
the location of the [appellant] in relation to the vehicle, the whereabouts of the ignition key, whether the motor was running, the [appellant's] ability, but for intoxication, to direct the use or non-use of the vehicle, or the extent to which the vehicle itself is capable of being operated or moved under its own power or otherwise. Id.
At trial, the jury was presented with conflicting versions of the events. Officer Martin testified that when Randles exited the car, the appellant slid behind the steering wheel of the running vehicle. Officer Martin believed that the appellant was about to drive away and he considered a pursuit to be imminent. When he asked the appellant what she was doing, she informed him that she was "driving." Contrastingly, both the appellant and Randles testified that for the seatbelts to be disengaged so that Randles could exit the vehicle, Randles first had to shut off the ignition and then open the door. Randles and the appellant contended that Randles pocketed his keys and left the appellant in the car with no means to start the car. Accordingly, at trial the credibility of the witnesses was a crucial factor to be determined by the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|