State v. Holladay5/12/2004
motion. State v. Green, 28,994 (La. App. 2d Cir. 02/26/97), 691 So. 2d 1273.
To convict an accused of driving while intoxicated, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant was operating a vehicle, and he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. La. R.S. 14:98; State v. Self, 36,887 (La. App. 2d Cir. 04/09/03), 842 So. 2d 1240; State v. Withers, 36,001 (La. App. 2d Cir. 06/12/02), 821 So. 2d 556.
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. Bell, 37,675 (La. App. 2d Cir. 09/26/03), 855 So. 2d 946. 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).
Intoxication, with its attendant behavioral manifestations, is an observable condition about which a witness may testify. State v. Allen, 440 So. 2d 1330, 1334 (La. 1983); State v. Self, supra. Some behavioral manifestations, independent of any scientific tests such as blood or breath alcohol tests, are sufficient to support a charge of driving while intoxicated. The behavioral manifestations that are sufficient to support a charge of driving while intoxicated must be determined on a case-by-case basis. State v. Self, supra; State v. Holley, 32,156 (La. App. 2d Cir. 08/18/99), 742 So. 2d 636. It is not necessary that a conviction for DWI be based upon a blood or breath alcohol test and the observations of an arresting officer may be sufficient to establish a defendant's guilt. State v. Self, supra; State v. McDonald, 33,013 (La. App. 2d Cir. 03/01/00), 754 So. 2d 382. In the instant case, the record indicates that at the time of his arrest, Holladay admitted that he was the driver of his vehicle, and he also admitted to drinking a beer. Although Holladay did not take the breath test, nor was a blood test administered, in McGee's opinion Holladay appeared intoxicated and failed the various field sobriety tests administered to him. As erratic operation is not an element of the offense, Holladay's argument of insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of driving while intoxicated is without merit. Therefore, this court finds that the evidence presented clearly supports the verdict.
In his second assignment of error, Holladay complains that the trial court erred in failing to grant his Motion to Quash the use of his 1996 conviction as a predicate offense. Holladay takes the position that in the guilty plea phase of his 1996 conviction, the trial court failed to advise him of the enhanceable nature of the offense or of the penalties involved.
To convict a defendant of driving while intoxicated, third offense, the state must show that the defendant had two other valid convictions. La. R.S. 14:98(D). It is well established that a guilty plea be free and voluntary on the part of the defendant. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 273 (1969). In the instant case, Holladay contests the validity of his 1996 conviction of DWI. At trial, the state offered evidence of Holladay's 1996 conviction, which consisted of the bill of information, a copy of the traffic ticket and the minutes. The minutes and the transcript of the 1996 guilty plea shows that Holladay was represented by counsel and that he was advised of his right to a trial, to remain silent and to confront a
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|