NO. 07-06 -035 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C AU GU ST 14, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ROBERT REY ES, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 1 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 5- 495,451 ; H ON ORABLE LAR RY B. “R US TY” LAD D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Fol low ing a pl ea of no t g uil ty , Appel lan t, Rob ert Rey es, w as conv icted by a j ur y of driv ing w hile into x icat ed a nd se nte nced to 120 days conf inem ent . Present ing a sing le is sue, he c ontends the Stat e’s ev ide nce w as factual ly i nsuffici ent t o suppor

t hi s c onv icti on. W e affi r m.2

Appel lan t was ar re ste d for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated after he s tr u cka bicy cl is t w it h h is ve h ic le
. T h e c o ll is io n o c c u rr e d n e a r a ru ra l in t e rs e c t io n e a s t o f L u b b o c kwh e re Re s e rve Sher iff’s D eputy

D ani el Cas tl eman w as direct ing traff icfor b icy cl is ts par ti ci pati ng i n a tr iat hlo n. At a pprox imat ely 11:0 0 a.m. , C a st le m an obs er v ed a bicy cl is t and se v eral v ehi cl es approachi ng the int ersecti on. W ear ing a br ig ht- orang e re flect iv e v est , he w ent t o the mi ddl e of the ro adw ay and si g nal ed for the lea d v ehi cl e to sto p. Uns ure w hether the dr iv er of that veh icl e sa w

hi m, C ast leman re posi ti oned hi msel f direct ly i n frontof the onco min g v ehicle. W hen the driver failed to respo nd, Castlem an realiz ed that the v ehicle w as no t g o i n g t o s t o p a n d h e y e l l e d fo r t h e b i cy c l i s t t o g e t o u t o f t h e roadw ay . As Castlem an jum ped o ut of t he v ehicle’s pat h, the d riv er sla mm ed on th e brake s; howev er, he w as unabl e to av oid st ri ki ng the bicy cl is t. After tendi ng to the bicy cl is t, w ho sus tai ned onl y minor i nju ri es, C ast leman ide nti fied A p p e ll a n ta s t h e d ri ve r o f t h e ve h ic le
. Ca s t le m a n wa s a s s is t e d a t t h e s c e n e b y Re s e rve Dep uty Eddi e Greer . W hen Gree r ask ed App ell ant for hi s d ri v er ’s l ic ense infor mati on, h e noti ced the s trong smel l of an al cohol icbev erag e. A s hor t t ime lat er , C ast leman and G re er w ere joine d by D epa rtme nt of P ublic Safety Troop er Bry an W itt in the investigation of this in cid e n t. Att h a t t im e , T ro o p e r W it t a lso sm e lle d th e st ro n g od o r of an al co h o licbe vera ge w hen talking to Appe llant an d n o t ic e d t hatAppe llant’s eyes w ere bloo dsho t. W itt also n o ti ce d th a t A p p e lla n t’ s sp e e ch w a s slu rre d a n d t h a t h e “ swaye d a lit tl e bi t” w h e n st a n d in g. Con cer ned t hat he w as int ox ic ated, W itt asked Appel lan t t o per form se v eral field so br iety tes ts, i ncl udi ng the h o rizo n tal g az e nysta g mus or H GN tes t. W hil e c onducti ng the HG NDur ing f ina l arg uments , Ap pel lan t c onced ed th at t he St ate p ro v ed th e remaini ng 1 ele ments of the offense. 3 test, W itt coun ted six out of six possible clues of

intoxication. App ellantdecline d to pe rform the rema ining tests or p rov ide a brea th sam ple for a nalysis. Base d on his observations, W itt ar re ste d Appe ll ant for dr iv ing w hil e intox ic ated. At his subseq uent jur y tri al, Appel lan t w as conv icted o f the offense. H e now ch all eng es the j ur

y ’sv erdict. A perso n com mits the of fense of driv ing w hile intoxicated if he is intoxicated w hile oper a ting a mot or

v ehi cl e i n a p ubl icpl ace. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 49.04( a) ( Ver non 2003)
. “I ntox ic ated” i s d efined as not hav ing the nor mal use of mental or physi cal facul ti es by reason of the i ntroductio n o f a lcohol , or

othe r subs tanc es, i nto t he body or hav ing an a l c o h o l c o n c e n t ra t i o n o f 0
. 0 8 or mor e. Id. at § 49. 01( 2)
. By hi s s ole i ss ue, A ppel lan t cont end s the St ate ’s ev iden ce w as factu ally insuf f icient to prove bey ond a reason able doubt that he w as int ox ic ated w hen he str uck the bicy cl is t. W e di sag re e.

1 W hen c onducti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e ex amine all the e vide n ce i n a neutral li g ht t o det er mine w hether the jur y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng g uil t beyond a re asona ble doubt
. Zuni ga v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 4 77, 4 84 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004 ) , over ruled in par t by W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 415-1 7 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. In doing so , w e mu st discuss the mostimpo rta n ta nd relevant e v iden ce tha t supp orts App ellant 's com p la in t o n appea l. Si m s v . St ate , 9 9 S
. W. 3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
. W e can not rev erse a c onv icti on unl ess w e find some o bje cti v e bas is i n the record tha t4

demonst ra t e s t h a tt h e g re a tw e i g h ta n d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t ra d i c t s the jur y ’s v erdict. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417. Furt her more, w e c annot conc lud e tha t Appel lan t’ s conv icti on is “c lea rl y w ro ng ” or

“manifest ly

unjust ” si mply

because w e di sag re e w it h the j ur

y ’s v erdict. Id. ; Cai

n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 404 , 407 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). At A ppel lan t’ s t ri al, mul ti ple w it ness es tes ti fied regar d in g hi s i ntox ic ati on. Dep uty Greer and Trooper

W itt bot h tes ti fied to the odor of an alco hol icbev erag e w hen t alk ing to Appel lan t. W hen q uest ion ed, A ppella n t i nformed W itt t hat h e had been i ntox ic ated the prev iou s e v eni ng . W itt t est ified thathe n oti ced Appel lan t’ s b loo dshotey es, sl ur re d s peech , and s w ay ing w hil e sta ndi ng . In addi ti on to the s ix cl ues of into x ic ati on, W itt al so noted that Appel lan t had difficul ty hol din g his head sti ll w hil e the HG N tes t was bei ng admi nis tered. Mu ch of this acti v ity w as v ide otaped from W itt’ s p atrol car and a c opy

of that tape w as introd uced in to evidence and p layed for t he jury . A rev iew of thatv ideo tap e, ho w ever, rev eals th at th e de tails of thatactiv ity

w ere dif f icult to discern . Furtherm ore , o n crossex aminat ion , W itt admi tted that Appel lan t was coope ra ti v e, follo w ed all i nst ru cti ons, and w as abl e to tel l him his address , h e igh t, weig ht, bir th da te, and s oci al sec ur ity number w it hout any difficul ty
. H e al so conc eded t hat A ppel lan t’ s b loo dshotey es coul d hav e been caus ed by

the w ind or

al lerg ies and that he w as n o t fa m ili a r w it h Appe ll ant’ s n or mal speec h
. A p p e llant’s si ste r tes ti fied th at A ppel lan t was act ing “ per fectl y fine” before the col li si on and that his ey es w ere al w ay s red and ag it ated from bl ow ing di rt
.5

Ev en s o, c onsi der ing al l thi s e v ide n ce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c annot conc lud e tha t App ellant ’s convi ction was clearly w rong or ma nifestly unju st. Th e test imo ny of the St ate ’s w it ness es alo ne w as suffici ent t o enable a jur y to conc lud e that Appell ant w as int ox ic ated. In th is reg ard, th e jury , as the ex clusiv e judge of the facts an d credibility of the wi tne sses, w as f ree to believe or disbe liev e any part of a w itness's testimo ny. T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (V er non 19 79) ; Goodm an v . St ate , 66 S.W .3d 2 83, 2 87 ( Tex .C r. App. 2001)
. Appel lan t’ s i ss ue i s o v er ru led
. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.
Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.