 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spangenberg v. State10/18/2000
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
AFFIRMED
Steven Eugene Spangenberg appeals his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. Raising four issues, Spangenberg alleges that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his previous DWI convictions, that the rule established in Tamez v. State should be applied retroactively to this case, that the trial court erred in admitting previously suppressed evidence, and that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Factual and Procedural Background
On the evening of May 8, 1998, DPS Trooper James Jennings noticed a pick-up truck traveling on U.S. Highway 290 with only one headlight. He turned his patrol car around, activated his patrol lights, and pulled the truck over. He noticed no abnormal driving. Jennings approached the truck and informed the driver, Steven Eugene Spangenberg, that he had a headlight out.
As Jennings spoke with Spangenberg, he noticed the smell of alcohol coming from the truck and from Spangenberg's breath. Jennings asked Spangenberg to step out of the truck and join him to the rear of the truck on the side of the road. As Spangenberg exited and walked behind his truck, Jennings noted that he was walking very deliberately and in a "crouched" position.
When Jennings asked Spangenberg whether he had been drinking, Spangenberg admitted to having had a beer. Jennings then asked Spangenberg to perform three field sobriety tests, all of which Spangenberg failed. Based upon his belief that Spangenberg was intoxicated, Jennings placed Spangenberg under arrest for DWI.
Jennings also spoke with Spangenberg's passenger, Miguel Arizola, at the scene. Arizola admitted to having had two beers, but stated that Spangenberg had had more to drink than he had. Jennings asked Arizola to perform three field sobriety tests and ascertained that Arizola was not intoxicated. He then released Spangenberg's truck to Arizola. Before doing so, however, Jennings completed a cursory inventory of the truck, during which he discovered a cooler containing beer and an empty beer can. Jennings transported Spangenberg to the Gillespie County Jail, where Spangenberg refused to take an intoxilyzer test.
Having numerous prior DWI convictions, Spangenberg was indicted for felony driving while intoxicated and pled not guilty. His case was tried to a jury, which returned a guilty verdict. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years probation and a $1,000 fine.
Arguments on Appeal
A. Tamez v. State
Section 49.09(b) of the Texas Penal Code provides that the offense of driving while intoxicated is a third degree felony if the defendant has had two previous DWI convictions. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §49.09(b) (Vernon 1999). In this case, Spangenberg was charged with felony DWI under section 49.09(b). The indictment alleged that, prior to the offense at issue, Spangenberg had been convicted of felony DWI on November 19, 1992, and on July 19, 1990. Before the trial began, Spangenberg stipulated to both of the previous DWI convictions alleged in the indictment.
Before the State began its case in chief, the prosecutor read the entire indictment to the jury. Then, during the State's case in chief, the State offered Spangenberg's stipulation, along with the indictments and judgments pertaining to the previous DWI convictions, into evidence. Because both of the prior DWI convictions were felonies, the indictments in those cases alleged two previous DWI convictions. When the State offered this evidence, Spangenberg's attorney stated, "We've reviewed that, Your Honor.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|