 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hassan v. State6/29/2005
oxicants on appellant's person. Additionally, the stop was conducted by Deputy Brewer after he observed appellant's vehicle in a liquor-store parking lot. Other aspects of appellant's behavior that were observed by Deputy Brewer further support that appellant was intoxicated, including the following: pulling out of the parking lot without utilizing his turn signal; crossing the center line of traffic while driving; refusing to immediately pull over and failing to stop until he reached his residence; being unable to stand upon exiting the vehicle without propping himself on the door of the vehicle; having red, bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech; changing his answer regarding how many beers he had consumed prior to the stop. Therefore, we cannot say that appellant's conviction for DWI was not supported by substantial evidence.
As previously stated, the only ruling adverse to appellant was the denial of appellant's motions for directed verdict as to the DWI charge. No objections or adverse rulings were made with respect to the refusal-to-submit charge or the remaining traffic violations. Pursuant to Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for directed verdict must be made in order to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction. Appellant failed to make such a motion with respect to any of the other charges; accordingly, that issue, with respect to all of the convictions except the DWI, has not been preserved for our review. See McClina v. State, 354 Ark. 384, 123 S.W.3d 883 (2003). However, there was testimony from Deputy Ameling as to appellant's refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test, as well as testimony from Deputy Brewer about his direct observations of appellant: (1) crossing the center line after pulling out of the liquor-store parking lot; (2) operating the vehicle with a missing passenger's side brake light; (3) failing to utilize his turn signal while pulling out from the liquor-store parking lot. The testimony from the officers, who were witnesses to appellant's actions or inaction, is sufficient to support the convictions for those offenses. See Lenoir v. State, 77 Ark. App. 250, 72 S.W.3d 899 (2002).
From a review of the record and the brief presented to this court, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and pursuant to the requirements of Anders, we hold that there is no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision and grant counsel's request to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
Neal and Baker, JJ., agree.
|