 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyon v. State2/14/2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
[No. 4353 - February 14, 2001]
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Valdez, Joel H. Bolger, Judge.
Jody B. Lyon was convicted of first-degree vehicle theft and driving while intoxicated, class C felonies. Lyon had six prior DWI convictions, two in the previous five years, and was therefore convicted of felony DWI. Lyon had a prior felony conviction for driving while intoxicated, and therefore faced a presumptive sentence of two years of imprisonment on each offense. Judge Bolger imposed the two-year presumptive term for each offense, and imposed the sentences consecutively to each other for a four-year composite sentence. This sentence was consecutive to an additional twenty-six months that had been suspended on Lyon's prior felony DWI offense. Thus, Lyon faced a composite sentence of six years and two months of imprisonment. Lyon argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm.
On March 10, 1999, Lyon was drinking at the Sugarloaf Saloon in Valdez. Lyon become loud and obnoxious and the bartender decided to cut Lyon off based on his signs of intoxication. The bartender dumped Lyon's drinks when Lyon was away from the bar. Lyon was asking people in the bar for a ride to the Long Branch Saloon, apparently a bar in Anchorage.
A short time later, Lyon was seen by at least two people in the bar trying to get into a car that belonged to Jessica Groppel, a waitress at the Sugarloaf Saloon. Groppel was about to get off duty and her friend, Shiloh Stamm, had Groppel's car running outside the bar. Apparently Lyon was unable to enter Groppel's car because the door handle on the side he was trying to enter was broken.
Stamm also had left his car outside the bar. The car had its keys in it. Someone noticed Stamm's car was moving, and Groppel and Stamm ran outside. Stamm opened the door and yelled for the person driving the car to get out. The person driving the car accelerated with Stamm hanging on to the door. Stamm was dragged a short way and fell off.
The police were called and responded in a few minutes. They found Stamm's car stuck in an alley. No one was in the car but there was a trail in the fresh snow leading from the car to a cabin where the police found Lyon. When a police officer yelled at Lyon, "Stop, police," Lyon took off running. But the police were able to apprehend Lyon and arrest him. Lyon denied driving the car.
The police took Lyon to the police station and gave him a breath alcohol test, which yielded a result of .271. Groppel positively identified Lyon as the person she saw taking Stamm's car. The police showed Stamm a photographic lineup that included a photograph of Lyon. Stamm concluded that two photographs resembled the man who stole his car; one of the photographs that he identified was of Lyon.
Following the presentation of this evidence at trial, the jury convicted Lyon. This appeal followed.
Lyon contends that the evidence that he was the person driving Stamm's car was weak and was insufficient to support his convictions. In reviewing a conviction to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to convict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. We are to uphold the conviction if we determine that fair-minded jurors exercising reasonable judgment could conclude that the state had met its burden of proving guilt built beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lyon argues that his conviction rests largely on the testimony of Groppel and argues that her testimony contained inconsistencies
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|