### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 598 -CR

TonyWa lt e r G or don , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B -07 -13 78- S , HO NORAB LE JAY K. WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y fo un d a pp e lla nt T ony Wal te r G or do n guil ty

of fe lo ny driv ingwh ile intox icated. See Tex. Pena l Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West 2003) , § 49.09(b)( 2) (West Supp. 2008). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a sse sse d p un ish me nt, e nh anc e d b y tw o p re vio us fe lony

c on vic tio ns , at s ixty

y e ars ’ im pr iso nme nt. I n tw o is su e s, a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to sustain the guilty verdic t. We overrule the se conte ntions and aff irm the conviction. The State’s only

witness at the guilt stag e wa s Depa rtment of Public Safety

Offic er Todd Reed. Ree d testified that at 11:10 p.m. on the nig ht in question, he stopped a F ord Explorer afte r see ing the vehicle spe edingand makinga turn without signa ling. Appe llant was the drive r and sole occ upant of the ve hicle. Ree d testified t h at when he approa ched the Ex plorer, he noticed a strong odor of a

n alcoholic be vera g e. Ree d asked a ppellant t o step out of the vehic le and sa w that h e wa s u n s t eady

on his feet. The office r also noticed that appellant’s e y es we re bloodshot. ReedA re cording of these e vents made by the video equipment in Ree d’s patrol c ar w as introduce d 1 i ne v i d e n c e an d

s h o w nt o th e j u r

y. T h e v i d e o i s c o n s i s t e n tw i t hR e e d ’ s t e s t i m o n y.

2 testified that when he asked a ppellant if he ha d been dr inking, a ppellant told him that he “dra nk a six -pac k at the Miles Cotton Fest.” Ree d said that he later found three unopened c ans of be er in the Ex plorer, a ll of which we re c old to the touch. Reed a lso testified that appellant tol d him that he had taken two medic ations, “Soma and L oritab, and I think he had take n it thirty minutes earlier .” Reed testified that he administered the standard f ield sobriety

tests to appellant at the
sc e ne of the sto p. He sa id t

hat he ob se rv e d s ix of

six c lue s o n th e ho ri zon ta l g a ze ny sta g mus te st, fi ve of e ig ht c lue s o n th e wa lk- and -t ur n te st, and

thr e e of fou r clu es on the on e -l e g g e d s tand te st. Ac c or din g to t

he of fi c e r, the re su lts of

e a c h tes t in dic a te d intoxic a tio n. B a se d o n th e se te st r e su lts and his ea rlier obse rvations, Reed a rre sted appe llant for drivingwhile intox icated. 1 Ap pe lla nt a g re e d to an Into xily

zer te st at th e ja il, but he did no t g ive an a de qu a te breath sample. Reed testified that appellant would pre tend t o blow into the machine or would blow for two or three seconds, then stop. Eventually , afte r appe llant consistently failed to blow into the
ma c hin e wi th t

he re qu ir e d f

or c e , Re e d a

bo rt e d th e te st w ithno re su lt. The de fense called two wi tnesses at the guilt st ag e. Kimber ly Douang kesone, appellant’ s g irlfriend a

nd the owner of t he Ex plorer, testified that she went to the scene of appe llant’s
arr est to retrie ve her

vehicle and drive it home. She said that she spoke to a ppellant at the sc ene a

nd, in her opinion, he wa s not intox icated. H elen Ga il Baug h testified that she saw ap p el l an t gi ve a breath sample at the sce ne, a f act de nied by

Reed. When there is a c halleng e to the suff iciency of the e vidence t o sustain a cr iminal conviction, the question pre sented is whether a rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essentialThe c ourt of cr iminal appeals ha s stated that the combination of a lcohol and drug s that make 2 an individual more susceptible to the influence of the a lcohol is equivalent to intox ication by alcohol a lone
. Gr ay v. State , 1 5 2 S
. W
. 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g He ar d v . S tate , 665 S.W .2d 488, 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). 3 elements of the offe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); Cla y ton v . S tate , 235 S.W .3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n a leg al suffic iency revie w, all the evidenc e is r e v ie w e d

in th e li g h t m o s t f

a v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t; it

is a s s u me d

th a t t h e tr ie r o f f act
r e s o lv e d c o n f li c ts in th e te s ti mo n y , w e igh e d

th e e v id e n c e , an d

dr e w r e a s o n a

b le in f e r ence s in a
manner that supports the verdic t. Clayton , 234 S.W .3d at 778. Appellant conte nds that the evidenc e is leg ally insufficient to pro v e t h at h e wa s int oxic a te d s ole ly

by a lc oh ol as a lle g e d in the ind ic tme nt an d fou nd by the jur

y . He argue s th a t hi s statement to Reed that he had take n Soma and L oritab raises the possibilit y that his intox ication was due to the drug s or to a combination of a lcohol and the dr ug s. There is, however , no evidenc e reg ardingthe nature of these dr ug s or their effe cts. I n particula r, t here is no evidenc e that use of the drug s, either a lone or in combination with alcohol, can result in i ntox ication. Viewingthe evidenc e 2 in the light mos t favor able to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of f act c ould find all the elements of the char g ed off ence beyond a re asonable doubt. I ssue one is over ruled. I n a fac tual sufficie ncy revie w, all the evidenc e is c onsidered equally , including the t es timony of def ense w itnesses and the e x istence of alternative hy

potheses. Cle wis v . S

tate , 922 S.W. 2d 12 6, 12 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Or on a v . S tate , 83 6 S.W. 2d 31 9, 32 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 92 , n o p e t.) . D ue de fe re nc e mus t be ac c or de d the fa c t fin de r’ s det e rm inatio ns , p art ic ula rl y tho se
conce rning the weig ht and cr edibility of t he evidence, but the reviewing court may disag ree with the result in order to pr event a manifest injustice. J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App.4

20 00 ); Cai n v . S

tate , 958 S.W .2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The evidence will be dee med fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt i f t he e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k as to mak e the fi nd ingof g uil t clea rly wrongor manife stly

unjust, o r i f the ve rdict is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the available e vidence
. W ats on v . S

tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 4 1 4 -1 5 (T ex . Crim. App. 2006); Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11.

I nsofar as the testimony

of the de fense witnesses sug g ests that app el l an t wa s not intox icated, w e must defe r to the jury ’s appar ent deter mination that this testimony was not cre dible. The only other e vidence favor ab l e t o appellant is hi s statement to Reed that he had take n two
me dic a tio ns . T he su g g e sti on tha t th e se dr ug s c a us e d a pp e lla nt’ s int oxic a tio n do e s no t pr e do min a te over the evidenc e of his alc ohol use. The jury ’s deter mination that appellant wa s intox icated by
a lc oh ol w a s n ot m anif

e stl y un jus t or a g a ins t th e g re a t w e ig ht and pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the a va ila

ble evidenc e. I ssue two is overr uled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Apr il 28, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh