### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A s s i gne d on B r i e f

s A pr i l 20, 2004
S T AT E OF T E NNE S S E E v . T E RRY B YI NGT ON
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty

No. S45,791 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2003-02814-CC A-R3- CD April 30, 2004
A Sull i v an C o u n t y

jury convicted the defe ndant, Ter ry By ington, of driving under the influence ( D U I ) , f o u rt h o f f e n s e , an d dr i v i n g o n a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e
. T h e t r i a l c o u rt o r d e r e d t h e d e f e nd a nt t o se rv e an e ff

e c tiv e fo ur -y e ar s e nte nc e in c on fi nem ent a s a Rang e I Imul tip le of

fe nd e r. On

a pp e a l, the def endant c ontends: (1) the e v i d en ce i s i nsufficie nt to support his DUIconviction; (2) the arr esting office r improper ly prese nted ex p er t t es t imony reg ardingfield sobriety

tests; (3) the trial court e rre d in ruling that the state could question the defe ndant reg arding a prior perjury conviction more than te n y ear s old; (4) the trial judge err ed in r efusing to r ecuse herse lf; and (5) his sentence is e xce ssi ve . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J OE G. R I L EY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the c o u rt, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.
Geor g e Todd Ea st, Kingspor t, Tennesse e (on a

ppeal) ; Stephen M. Wal la c e , D is tric t Public De fende r; and Willi am Andre w Kenne dy , Assistant District Publ ic Def ender (at trial) , for the a

ppellant, Ter

ry By ington.
Pa ul G . Summe rs , Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. T ur ne r, As sis tant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; H. Gre eley

Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Wil liam B . Har per, I I , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
Offic er Er ic Alford, a patr ol office r with the King sport Police Depa rtment, testified that on J une 15, 2001, while tra

veling on East Stone Drive in Kingspor t, Tennesse e, he obse rved the defe ndant drive his pickup truc k acr oss the cente r line of a six -lane road twic e within a short distance . Offic er Alford state d he fur

ther obser ved the de fenda

nt’s vehicle a

pproac h a y ellow light at an intersec tion wi tho ut s l o w i n g
. T h e l i g h tc h an g e d t o r e d a s t h e v e h i c l e e n t e r e d

t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , an d

t h e v e h ic le stopped in the middle of the interse ction under the traff ic light. Offic er Alford initiated a traff ic stop.-2-

Offic er A lford testified he observe d a “ve ry strong ” odor of alc ohol; the defe ndant’s spee ch was slurre d; and he a

ppear ed to be intoxi cate d. The de fenda nt informed the of

fice r t hat he ha d been to Hog Wil d, a local bar, that he had consumed seven or eig ht be ers, and that he knew he should not b e d ri v i n g. Of fi c e r A lf or d a sk e d the de fe nd ant to exit his ve hic le and c on du c te d a

se ri e s o f f ie ld s ob ri e ty tests. The off

icer testified the def

endant pe rfor

med “poor ly ” on the f

inge r-to-nose test and touche d his u p p e r li p r a th e r th anth e ti p o f

h is n o s e o ntw o o c c a s io n s
. O f f ic e r A lf o r d s tate d th e d e f e n d a nt perf ormed “ [v] ery

poorly” on the walk- and-turn te st and was “ stag g ering .” The office r explained that he did not a sk the defe ndant to perf orm the one le g g ed stand test bec ause “ it was pointless as far as his balanc e and tr

y ing to pe rfor

m the test acc urate ly .” Of fice r Alford testified that based upon his ex perie nce a

nd observations, he believed t he defenda nt was too intox icated to ope rate a vehic le. Upon transpor

ting the defe ndant to the city jail, O ffice r Alford asked the defe ndant to take a bre athaly

zer test and explained the conse quence s of his ref usal; never

theless, the def

endant ref used. The of

fice r subseque ntly

lear ned that the de fenda

nt’s license ha d been r evoked.
The de fenda

nt did not testi fy at t rial. The jur y convicted him of D UI

and driving on a revoke d license. D uring the sec ond phase of the bifurc ated tria l, the state introduce d cer tified copies of jud g me nts of

thr e e pri or DUI

c on vic tio ns , a

nd the jur y c on vic te d th e de fe nd ant o f D UI , f ourt h offe nse.
I. WA IV ER
The state c ontends the defendant failed to file a timely motion for new tria l; thus, all i ssues e xce pt s uf

fi c ie nc y of the e vid e nc e and

se nte nc ingare wa ive d. Th e state is c or re c t.
A motion for new tr ial “shall be ma de . . . within thirty day s of t he date the order of sente nce is entere d.” Te nn. R. Crim. P . 33(b). This provision is ma ndatory , and the time for filing may not be extended. See Te nn . R. Cr im. P. 4 5( b) ; se e als o State v. Martin, 9 4 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 67, 569 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Dodson, 780 S.W .2d 778, 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989). The thirty -day provision is jurisdictional, and an untimely motion is a nullity

. Dodson, 780 S.W .2d at 780. I t deprives the appellant of

the opportunity to argue on appea l any issues that should have bee n raised in the motion for ne w trial. Mar

tin, 940 S.W .2d at 569. Fur thermore , the unt imely filing of a motion for new trial do e s n ot t oll the tim e fo r fi lin g a no tic e of a pp e a l; thu s, an un tim e ly mot ion fo r ne w t ri a l w ill a lso result in an untimely

notice of a

ppeal. See State v. Davis, 748 S.W.2d 206, 207 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 87 ). Un lik e the un tim e ly fi lin g of the no tic e of a pp e a l, thi s c ourt do e s no t have the a uth or ity to waive the untimely

filing of a motion for new trial. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) ; State v. Givhan, 616 S.W .2d 612, 613 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) . Howeve r, this court, i n its discretion, may take notice of plain er

ror whic h aff

ects a substantial rig ht of the d ef en dant wher e it may

be nec essar

y to do su bs tanti a l ju sti c e . T e nn . R. Cr im. P. 52( b) ; Stat e v. John so n, 98 0 S.W.2 d 414 , 418 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1998).
Th e jud g men ts in t

he ins tant c a se we re fi le d o n M ay 12 , 2 00 3. Th e de fe nd ant d id n ot f ile a motion for new

trial until J une 27, 2003, we ll bey ond t h e t h i rty -day require ment. Thus, the-3-

untimely motion is a nullity

. Although the defe ndant contends this court should re cog nize the filing as timely beca

use his c ounsel believe d the def endant ha d previously

filed a motion for ne w trial, we are without authority

to gr ant such re lief. B eca use the de fenda

nt’s motion for new tria l was untimely , his notice of appea l f iled on J uly 24, 2003, was also untimely

. Howeve r, the d ef endant filed a motion asking t h i s court to waive the timely filing of the notice of

appea l in the interest of justice, and we previously enter ed an order g ranting that motion. I n that order , howeve r, this court took no positi on as to the ef fec t of the untimely motion for new tria l on the issues prese nted for our revie w. Due to the untimely motion for new tria l, the defe ndant has wa ived the following issues: (1) whether Offic er A lford’s testimony reg ardingfield sobriety testing w as inadmi s s ible expert testimony ; (2) whe ther the de fenda nt’s prior perj u ry

conviction would be a dmissibl e if he had testified at trial e ven thoug h the conviction wa s more than ten y ear s old; an d (3 ) wh ether the trial jud g e e rr e d in

fa ili ngto r e c us e he rs e lf

fr om the pr oc e e din g s. F ur the rm or e , we ha

ve e xami ne d th e se issues for plain e rror

and conc lude they

are totally

without merit. See T e n n
. R. Cr im

. P. 52(b). Howeve r, we will address the suf ficienc y of the e vidence and sentenc ing issues be cause these issues are revie wable notwithstanding the untimely motion for new tria l. See State v. Boxley , 76 S.W .3d 381, 390 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001)

. II. SUFF ICIENCY
Th e de fe nd ant c on te nd s the e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c on vic tio n f

or DU I , f ourt h of fe ns e . Wh e re su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nce is cha lle ng e d, the re le va nt q ue sti on fo r a n a pp e llate cour t i s whether , afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trie r o f fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime or crimes be y ond a rea sonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e ); J ackson v. V irg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L

. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); S tate v. Elki ns, 102 S.W .3d 578, 581 (Tenn. 2003) . The we ight a nd cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s’ testimony are matters entru s t ed ex cl u s ively to the jury

as the trier

of fac t

. S t at e v
. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. B rew er, 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

. Te nn e sse e la

w p ro hib its a

pe rs on fr om d ri vin gor be ingin phy sic a l con tr ol of a mot or ve hic le on any of the state’ s publi c roads or highw ay s while under the influence of an intoxi cant. Te nn. Cod e A n n
. § 5 5

- 1 0

- 4 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 )

. T h e f o u rt h o r s u

b s e qu e n t D U I c o n v i c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s a Cla ss E felony

. Id. § 55-10-403( a)( 1).
Offic er A lford testified he observe d the defe ndant’s vehicle c ross the ce nter line of a six -lane road on two oc casions within a short dis tance . The de fenda nt then approa ched a

y ellow light at an int e rs e c tio n w ith ou t sl ow ing and sto pp e d in

the mid dle of

the int e rs e c tio n a s t he lig ht c ha ng e d to red. U pon conductin g t h e traff

ic stop, the offic er smelled the odor of a lcohol and obser ved the defe ndant’s spee ch wa s slurred. The defe ndant informed the officer t h at h e h ad bee n to a bar , consumed seve n or eig ht beer s , an d k n ew he should not be driving . Offic er A lford stated the defe ndant per formed poor ly on the field sobrie ty

tests and was too intox icated to dr ive. During the second pha se of tria l, the state pre sented c ertified copies of judg ments of three prior DUI-4-

c o n v i c t i o n s
. W e c o n c l u d e t h i s e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n tt o s u

p p o rtth e d e f

e n d an t ’ s c o n v i c t i o nf

o r D U I, fourth off ense.
I n c on te sti ngthe su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , th e de fe nd ant id ent if ies d e ta ils of

the a rr e st which Of fice r Alfor d was u n ab l e to re call. Howe ver, this ar g ument relates to the offic er’ s cre dibilit y

as a w itness, which is a matter entrusted exclusively to the jury as the trier

of fa ct. The defe ndant questioned the of fice r re g ardingthese de tails during cr oss-examination. However , the jur y c ho se to a c c re dit

the of fi c e r’ s te sti mony

and c on vic t th e de fe nd ant. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
III. SE NTENCING
The de fenda

nt contends his sentenc e is ex cessive. Spec ifically , the def endant submits the trial court f

ailed to apply

cer tain mitigating fac tors and improper ly we i gh ed enhancement a nd mitigating fac tors. The de fenda nt further maintains the trial cour

t erred i n d en y ing a lternative se nte nc ing . We dis c e rn

no e rr or and de c lin e to d ist

ur b th e se nte nc e s im

po se d b y the tr ia l c ourt

. A. Se nt e nc ing He ar ing
Duri ngthe se nte nc inghe ari ng , th e de fe nd ant t e sti fi e d h e ob ta ine d a GE D and wo rk e d “ pr e tty constant” a s a shee t metal operator. The de fenda nt stated he had serve d in the milit ary and re ceive d a “disc harg e under

honorable conditions” but not a n honorable discharg e. The de fenda nt testified he succe ssfully completed prior sente nces involving probation and e x presse d a willingne ss to enter an a lc oh ol t

re a tme nt pr og ra

m; how e ve r, he a dmi tte d he ha d p re vio us ly un de rg on e a lc oh ol t

re a tme nt.
The de fenda

nt’s prese ntence repor

t, which was enter ed into e vidence during the sentenc ing hear ing, reve aled prior convictions for perjury , violation of a habitual motor vehicle of fende r orde r, seven D UI/DWI ’s, driving on a re voked license , numerous p u b lic drunkenne ss violations, and nume ro us oth e r m isd e me ano rs
. B. Trial Court’s F ind ings
The trial c ourt found the de fenda nt qualified as a R ang e I Imultipl e off ender due to his two prior fe lony

convictions. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-106(a )(1) . The trial c o u r t applied enha

nceme nt fa c tor (2 ), “ [t]he de fe nd ant h a s a pr e viou s histo ry

of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns or

c ri min a l be havio r i n addition to those nece ssary to establish the appropr iate ra ng e.” See id. § 40-35-114( 2) (2003) . The court a pplied mitigating fac tor (13), “[a] ny other factor consistent with the purposes of this chapter ,” due to the def

endant’ s g ood work history

. Se e id . § 40-35-113( 13). The c ourt assesse d g reat weig ht to the enhanc ement fa ctor a nd littl e we ight to the mitigating fac tor. The court orde red c oncurr ent sentenc es of f

our y ear s for DU I -four

th and six months for driving on a re voked licens e for an eff ective f our-y ear sentenc e.
I n imposing conf

inement, t h e t ri al court prope rly noted that as a

Rang e I Ioffe nder, the defe ndant was not presumed to be a favor able candidate for alternative sentencing

. See id. § 40-35- 102(6). The trial court noted the defendant’s ex tensive criminal history and that the def endant ha d-5-

re pe a te dly

e ng a g e d in

the same ty

pe of c ri min a l c on du c t. T he c ourt fu rt he r f ound the de fe nd a nt d id n o th av e afa v o rab l e p o t en t i al fo r r eh ab i l i t at i o nan d d en i edal t ern at i v e s en t en ci n g. C. Standard of

Review
A defen d an t w h o c h a ll e n g e s h is o r h e r s e n te n c e h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th e s e n te n ce imposed by

the trial cour

t is im proper . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-401, Sent en cing Commiss ion Com me nts ; State v. As hb y , 823 S.W. 2d 16 6, 16 9 (T e nn . 199 1) . I t is thi s c ourt ’s du ty to c on du c t a de novo revie w of the r ecor d with a pre sumption t he trial c ourt’s dete rminations are corr ect whe n a def endant a ppeals the le ng th, rang e, or ma nner of service of his or her

sentenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401( d). The pr esumption of corr ectne ss is c onditioned upon the aff irmative showing in the rec ord that t h e t ri al cour t considere d the sentenc ing pr inciples and a ll releva nt fac ts and circ umstances. State v. Pettus, 986 S.W .2d 540, 543-44 (Te nn. 1999). In this case, the tr ial court’s se nte nc e s are e nti tle d to a pr e su mpt ion

of c or re c tne ss. D. Length of

Sentences
The de fenda

nt contends the trial court improper ly weig hed the e nhance ment and mitigating fac tors. The we ight given to each e nhance ment or mitigating f actor is within t he discre tion of the trial court, a ssuming the tria l court has c omplied with the purposes and pr inciples of the se ntencing a c t and its fi nd ing s are su

pp or te d b y the re c or d. State v. Ma dd e n, 99 S.W. 3d 12 7, 13 8 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 2002). The statut es p re s cribe no particula r we ight f or an e nhance ment or mitigating f actor

. State v. Gosnell, 62 S.W .3d 740, 750 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) . W e co n cl u d e t he trial c ourt was well within its di scre tion to attribute gr eat we ight to the de fenda nt’s abomin ab l e cr i minal rec ord. Al tho ug h th e de fe nd ant sub mit s the tr ia l court e rr e d in fa ili ngto c on sid e r h is f

a mil y c ir c ums tanc e s, social history , and past c ompliance with probation orders as mitigating fac tors, we c onclude the tr ial c ourt ’s imp os iti on

of the ma ximumse nte nc e s w a s c le arl y jus tif ie d r e g ard le ss o f t

he se fa c tor s. E. A lt e r nat ive Se nt e nc ing
The de fenda

nt maintains the trial court e rre d in denying pr obation or s o m e fo rm of alternative sentenc ing. A n espec ially mitigated or

standard of

fende r convic ted of a Class C, D or E felony is presumed to be a favor able candidate for alter native sente ncing in the absenc e of e vidence to the c on tr a ry
. Te nn
. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 10 2( 6)

. Ho we ve r, a s pr e vio us ly state d, the de fe nd a nt i s not presumed to be a

favor able c andidate be cause he is a Rang e I Imultipl e off ender

. Under the 1989 SentencingAct, sente nces w hich involve conf inement ar e to be ba sed on the following considerations contained in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40-35-103(1): (A) [c]onfinement is nece ssary to protec t society by restra ining a

defe ndant who has a lon g his tor

y of c ri min a l c on du c t; (B ) [c]onfinement is necessa ry to a void de prec iating the seriousne ss of the off ense or c on fi ne me nt i s p art ic ula

rl y su ite d to pr ov ide an e ff

e c tiv e de te rr e nc e to o the rs lik e ly to commit si milar offe nses; or-6-

(C) [m ]e a s u r e s le s s r e s tr ic ti v e th anc o n f in e me n t h a v e f

r e qu e n tl y o r r e c e n tl y b een a pp lie d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to t he de fe nd ant. State v. Grig sby , 957 S.W .2d 541, 545 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Millsaps, 920 S .W.2d 267, 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)

. I n denying a ll forms of alternative sentencing , the trial cour t noted the def

endant’ s ext ensive history of cr iminal c onduct “which probably oversha dows almost e very thing else.” I t consisted of tw o p ri or fe lon ie s, se ve n pri or DU I/D WI ’s , an d a host of a dd iti on a l mi sd e me ano rs . T he c ourt a lso noted the def

endant lac ked the potential for rehabilitation due to his continuous history of driving afte r consuming alcohol. We endorse the comments of t he trial court indi cating“it’s one thing to be an alc oholic, it’s another thing to be a dr unk driver.” We c onclude the trial court prope rly order ed the de fe nd ant t o s e rv e his e ff e c tiv e fo ur -y e ar s e nte nc e in c on fi ne me nt.
Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nts of

the tr ia l c ourt

.

____________________________________ J OE G. RI L EY, JUDGE