### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KELLY ANN HANCOCK

Criminal Court for Williamson County

No. I-205-1197

No. M2000-02436-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 23, 2001

ORDER

The appellant, Kelly

A. Hancock appe

als as a matter of right from her conviction for driving under the influence. She contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of

guilt. After
a review of the ev

idence we affi

rm the conviction p

ursuant to Rule20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. FACTS On Febr uary 2 0, 1 997 , of fic ers wit h th e Wi lli ams on C oun ty Sheriff’s Department were called t o the scen e of a two-car accident on Hillsboro Road. Upon arrival, officers approached the appellant,who was the driver of one of the car’s involved in the accident. The appellant was not the d riverat f

ault in the accident. As the officers were speaking with the appellant, they observed an odor of alcohol and fo

und an empty

bott le of Zima

in the appellant’ s van. The appella nt became argumentative

as the officers questioned her about the accident. The officers then required the appellant to

perform a field s

obriety tes

twhich she failed. The appellant was then read a standard implied consent form and agreed to provide a blood sample. The appellant’s blood was sent to the Tennessee Bureau of

Investigatio n for toxi cology testing. The toxico

logy test in

dicated that her

blood alcohol cont

ent was 0.16 perc

ent. On November 10, 1997, the appe llant, Kel ly A. Hancock, was indicted by a Williamson County Grand Jury a

nd charged with

one count of Driving Under the Influence (.10 percent or more). Following a jury trial

, the appellant was convicted and fined $350 and, on August 16, 2000, the trial court sentenced her 11 months and 29 days suspe nded except for fo

rty-eigh t hours incarcer

ation in the county jail. A

motion for new trial was denied on September 29, 2000. On that same date, the appellant filed a

notice of appea

l to this court.

ANALYSIS On appeal, the appellant raises one issue. The appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to find her guilty of

driving under the influence beyond a reasonable doubt because the test

imony of Off

icer Marsha A. B

rolsman was inher

ently unrel

iable and inconsis

tent. When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not reweigh
or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.1978). A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredi ts the state's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the-2-

state. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn.1994); State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.1978). On appeal, the state is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and al

l legitimate or reasonable inferences which may be dra wn therefrom. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d at 803; Harris , 839 S.W.2d at 75. This Co urt will not disturb a verdict

of guilt due to the sufficiency of the evidenceunless the defendant demonstrates that the facts contained in the record and the inferences which may be drawn

therefrom are insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty

beyond a re

asonable doubt. State v. Brewer , 932 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly

, it is the appellate

court's duty

to affirm the conviction if the evidence, viewed under these standards, was sufficient for any rational trier of fa ct to have found the essential elemen ts of the offense beyond

a reasonable do

ubt. Tenn. R. App .P. 1 3(e); State v. Cazes , 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn.1994). On appeal, the appellant bases her appeal on the credibility of the ar resting off

icer. A s an appellate court, we are not in a pos ition to a nd will no t reweigh the credibility and weight that a jury gives a witness or a particular piece of evidence. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 83 2, 835 (Tenn.1978); State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 803 (Tenn.1994). Never theless, there wa s ample evidencepresented at tria

l to support the jury’sverdict. Officer Brolsman testified that the defendant
was driving he r veh icle on a public road on the night of her arrest. Upon detecting the odor of alcohol officers requested that the appellant perform a field sobriety test which she failed. An empty container for an alcoholic beverage was found in the appellant’s vehicle. A blood test revealed that the defendant’s blood

alcohol cont ent was 0.16 percent. The evidence supports a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent or more.
CONCLUSION Acco rdi ngly, we affirm thejudgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Courtof Criminal Appeals. Costs of the appeal will be paid by the appellant, Kelly Ann Hancock.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

____________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

____________________________________ NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE