### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie f Ma y 11, 200 4

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. BR YA N K . M ILLER

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for F ranklin County No. 14539 J. Curtis Sm ith, Jud ge

No. M2003- 01434-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Jul y 7, 2004

Th e Ap pe lla nt, B ry a n K. Mill e r, app e a ls his c on vic tio n f or drivi ng un de r the inf

lue nc e (D UI ), fo urth offe nse. On a

ppeal, Miller r aises the sing le issue of whether the evidenc e wa s sufficient to support his conviction. Finding the evidenc e leg ally sufficie nt, the judgme nt is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J .J ., joined.

David McG overn, A ssistant P ublic Def ender
, J asper , Tenne ssee, for the Appellant, Bry an K. Miller.

Paul G. Sum me rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; M ic he lle R. Cha pman, As sis ta nt Att orne y Ge ne ra l; J . Mic ha e l Taylor , Dis tr ic t Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l; an d St e ve n M

. Blount, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

On Fe bruary

17, 2002, the Appellant wa s stopped by Offic er McBe e for trave ling sixt y -three miles per hour in a

thirty -mile an hour zone in the ci t y o f C o wan. The offic er r equeste d the Appellant’s driver lice nse, but the Appe llant informed him that he didn’t have one, a s it had been revoke d. McB ee reque sted that the Appellant step out of t he vehicle, and the Appellant complied. At this point McB ee notice d that t h e Ap p ellant smelled of a lcohol. When asked if he had bee n drinking , the Appellant r esponded “ that he had a few .” The Appellant wa s then asked to pe rform the standar d heel -t o-toe a nd one-le g stand tests, which he f ailed. A se cond off

-duty office r wa s prese nt when the Appellant attempted to per form the two tests and a lso testified that the Appellant’s pe rf orma nc e of

the se te sts wa s u ns a tis fa c tory . T he Ap pe lla nt w a s p la c e d u nd e r a rr e st a ndtake n to jail, where he re fused to submit to a Br eatha ly zer test.-2-

On May 6, 2002, a Franklin County g rand jury returne d a seve n-count indictment ag ainst the Appellant for : (1) violation of the motor vehicle ha bitual offende r statute; (2) driving on a revoke d license; (3) driving on a re vok ed l icense , third offe nse; (4) driving while intoxicated; (5) driving wh i l e i n t o x i ca t ed
, fo u rt h o ff en s e; (6 ) v i o l at i o n o f t h e i m p l i ed co n s en t l aw ; an d (7 ) r ec k l es s d ri v i n g. These c harg es all arose from the events of Fe bruary 17, 2002. After a jury trial, the Appe llant was convi ct ed o f (1 ) DUI , fourth off ense, a class E fe lony ; (2) violation of the motor vehic le habitual offe nder s t atut e, a c lass E felony ; and (3) r eckle ss driving. A sentenc ing he aring was he ld on F e br ua ry 27 , 2 00 3, a t w hic h ti me the Ap pe lla nt w a s se nte nc e d, a s a Ra ng e I I mul tip le of fe nd e r, to

c o n c u rr e n tf

o u r

- ye ar c o m m u n i t y c o rr e c t i o n s s e n t e n c e s , w i t h s e r v i c e o f e l e v e n m o n t h s a n d t w e n t ynine day s in the county

jail. These se ntence s wereorder ed to be se rved c oncurr ently with the Appellant’s six-month s entenc e in the county jail for reckle ss driving

. The Appe llant’s motion for new tria l was denie d, with this appeal following

.

Ana lys is

On appe al, the Appe llant raises the single issue of suffic iency of the e vidence . I n considering this iss ue, we apply

the rule that, where the suffic iency of the evidenc e is c halleng ed, the r eleva nt qu e sti on fo r the re vie wi ng c ou rt is “ wh e the r, a ft e r vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble
to the [S tate], any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond

a re asonable doubt.” J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S. Ct . 2 78 1, 27 89 (1 97 9) ; se e als o Tenn. R. Ap p. P. 13(e). More over, the State is entitled to the stronge st leg itimate view of the evidenc e and all rea sonable inferenc es which may be dra wn there from. Sta te v . H ar ris , 839 S.W .2d 54 , 7 5 ( Te nn . 199 2)

. Al l que sti on s invo lvi ng the c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s, the we ig ht an d va lue to be given the evidenc e, and all fac tual issues are resolved by the trier of

fac t. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). This court will not rew eig h or re evaluate the evide nce prese nted. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978)

. “A g uiltyverdic t by

the jury , approve d by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits t h e t es t i m ony of the witnesses for

the State and r esolves all conf licts in favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Grac e , 49 3 S. W.2 d 4 74 , 4 76 (T e nn . 1 97 3)

. A jury c on vic tio n re mov e s th e pr e su mpt ion of inn oc e nc e wi th which a de fenda nt is ini tially cloake d and re place s it with one of g uilt, so that on appea l, a convicte d defe ndant has the bur den of de monstrating that the evi d en ce is insufficient. Sta te v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . These r ules are applicable to finding s of guilt predic ated upon dire ct evidenc e, cir cumstantial evidenc e, or a combination of both. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

. The Appe llant was convicted of DUI , in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 55- 10-401(a )(1) , which provide s that it is unl awf ul for any person to drive or be in phy sical control of

a n auto mob ile on a ny pu bli c ro a d, wh ile un de r theinf lue nc e of a n in toxic a nt. Th e Ap pe lla nt o nly challeng es the suf

fi ci en cy of proof

of the re quisite element that he w as under the influenc e of a n int oxic a nt. Spe c if

ic a lly , h e a sse rt s th a t a ny

c on c lus ion s d ra wn by the of fi c e rs we re su sp e c t be c a us e of their lac k of training , varying te stimonyas to the spec ific deta ils of the Appellant’s pe rformance of the fie ld sobriety

tests, failure to take notes, failure to question the Appellant whe n and how many-3-

be e rs he ha d c on su me d, a ndpr ov idi ng a n u ne ve n s ur fa c e up on wh ic h to take the fi e ld s ob ri e ty te sts

. We d i s ag ree . As the State asse rts, these a re issues whic h g o to cre dibilit y and we ight of

the evidenc e. The se fa ctual con s i d erations were r esolved by the trier of

fac t, and we a

re w ithout authority to rewe igh or

ree valuate the determinations.

The off icer testified that the Appe llant was stopped for speeding and wa s unable to produc e a drive r license . Both o ff i cers testified that the Appe llant smelled of alcohol, a nd the Appellant admitted that he had consumed alcohol. Despite va rianc es in the off

icer ’s testimony

reg arding the

natur e a ndde g re e of

the Ap pe lla nt’ s p e rf

orma nc e of

the fi e ld s ob ri e ty

te sts , b othte sti fi e d th a t hi s pe rf orma nc e wa s u ns a tis fa c tory

. Ad dit ion a lly , th e Ap pe lla nt r e fu se d to take a B re a tha ly zer

te st. This e vid e nc e , w he n c on sid e re d inthe lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the Sta te , is su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a finding by

a ration al j u ry

that the Appellant wa s driving a vehicle w hile under the influence of an intox icant. This issue is without merit.

CO NC LU SION

We conclude that there was suff icient evidenc e to support the Appe llant’s conviction for DUI , fourth off

ense. Accor dingly
, the j udg ment of t he Franklin C ounty Circuit Court is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE