State v. Bell9/26/2003
Defendant, John Curtis Bell, was charged with DWI (third offense) following a traffic stop of the vehicle he was allegedly driving on November 25, 1999. At the time of his arrest, La.R.S. 14:98 provided that the penalty for DWI (third offense) was imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years, a mandatory fine of $2,000 and a requirement that at least six months of the sentence be served without benefit. A jury found defendant guilty as charged.
On April 25, 2002, the trial court imposed the mandatory fine and sentenced defendant to three years at hard labor in accordance with La.R.S. 14:98 as it read at the time of the offense. The court, however, suspended the hard labor sentence on the condition that defendant serve nine months in the parish jail, six months of which were to be served without benefit. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, urging that his sentence was illegal in that it should have been imposed under La.R.S. 14:98 as amended (effective August 15, 2001) rather than as it read at the time of his arrest. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court. Defendant perfected the instant appeal.
Discussion
Sufficiency
The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La. App. 2d Cir. 04/02/97), 691 So. 2d 347, writ denied, 97-1203 (La. 10/17/97), 701 So. 2d 1333. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Braswell, 605 So. 2d 702 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992).
To convict an accused of driving while intoxicated, the state need only prove that the defendant was operating a vehicle and that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. La. R.S. 14:98; State v. Withers, 36,001 (La. App. 2d Cir. 06/12/02), 821 So. 2d 556; State v. Holley, 32,156 (La. App. 2d Cir. 08/18/99), 742 So. 2d 636; State v. Iles, 96-256 (La. App. 3d Cir. 11/06/96), 684 So. 2d 38.
As noted above, defendant admitted his intoxication, so the only sufficiency issue before this court is whether a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in accord with Jackson v. Virginia, supra, in the light most favorable to the state, could reasonably conclude that the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the driver/operator of the vehicle.
Summary of Trial Testimony
Lincoln Parish Sheriff's Deputy Stephen Williams testified that on November 25, 1999, he was on routine patrol in the eastern part of the parish. As Dy. Williams entered a curve on Beacon Light Road, a gray sports utility vehicle swerved toward the officer's lane, forcing him onto the shoulder of the road to avoid a collision. Dy. Williams turned his patrol car around and began pursuit. He lost sight of the SUV momentarily when it went over a hill, but he got to within 200 feet of the vehicle as it slowed to turn into the driveway of the Leisure Living Trailer Park.
As the deputy pulled into the mobile home park behind the SUV, two men were getting out of the vehicle walking towards one of the trailers. The area was lit and the deputy could see the driver, who was at the left front of the SUV, and the passenger, who was at the right front of the vehicle. The two men continued toward the mobile home. Dy. Williams,
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|