 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thornton v. State3/28/2001
Appellant's petition for discretionary review refused August 1, 2001.
MATTHEW ALLEN THORNTON, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98-142088-01
Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
OPINION ON RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 50, we withdraw our opinion of January 24, 2001, and substitute the following in its place.
Matthew Allen Thornton appeals his misdemeanor conviction for driving while intoxicated. The two points of error challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any 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, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979). When reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we must decide whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrates that the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the factfinder's determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
In order to convict the appellant, the factfinder was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thornton was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Three witnesses testified: a paramedic named Coley Jaszkowiak, a records custodian named Deborah River, and the arresting officer, Charles Hamilton. EMT Jaszkowiak testified that she was dispatched to a one vehicle accident at 1:11 a.m. She arrived at the scene in three minutes. The motor vehicle was wrecked into a tree. Thornton was sitting in the driver's seat. As she approached, a bystander helped Thornton out of the vehicle. The bystander was holding Thornton beneath the arm. Thornton was very unsteady on his feet, slurred his speech, and smelled strongly of alcohol. When Jaszkowiak inquired of his need for medical treatment, Thornton declined, then stumbled forward and had to be caught to keep from falling. The police officer arrived about two minutes after the paramedic, and Jaszkowiak departed about ten minutes after the officer arrived. Based upon her training and experience, Jaszkowiak formed an opinion that the appellant was intoxicated.
Deputy Charles Hamilton testified that he arrived at the scene at 1:15 a.m. Hamilton determined that the vehicle had been traveling on a public roadway prior to being wrecked. The grass between the public roadway and the vehicle was mashed with tire tracks. Nothing obscured the view of the accident from the road, which was a high traffic area. Thornton was standing next to the wrecked truck. An older man was helping Thornton maintain his balance. Hamilton asked if anyone was injured. Thornton replied, "I'm drunk." Hamilton checked the vehicle for other occupants; there were none. An empty 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor lay on the right-hand fl
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|