### NUM BER 13-08- 312- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

WA YNE R OWL A ND , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 48t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A j ur y co nv ic ted a p p e lla nt, W ay ne R ow lan d, of felony dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated (D W I)

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 49 .04 , 49. 09(b )(2) ( Verno n 20 03 & Su pp. 200 9). The tr ial co urt as ses sed puni shmentat ten y ears’ i mpri sonment

. By one i ss ue, a ppel lan t
c ha l l en g es t he fac tu al s uffi c i en c y o f t he e v i de nc e to s up po rt th e c on v i c ti on
. W e affi r m.2 I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND In t he ev eni n g o f

J u ly30, 2007, Cor pus Chr is ti pol ic e off ic er Ja son Rho des w as patroll ing N orth S tapl es Street, w hen he sto pped a Cor v ette conv erti ble , w hic h had ex pired temporar

y l ice n se plate tag s. The v ehi cl e, dr iv en by appel lan t, took

approx imat ely

an ent ire b lock to com e to a stop

. A t trial, Of f icer Rhode s testif ied th at th is w as an unu sually lon g di sta nce to s top, g iv en th e s peed of the v ehi cl e. Approachi ng the v ehi cl e, O ff ic er R hodes note d tw o oc cupan ts in the v ehi cl e and smel led al cohol emanati ng from th e car and from appel lan t. H e s potte d s ome open cont aine rs of

alcoho l in the v ehicle. Off ice r Rh o d e s also not ed a ppe llant’s generally dis hev ele d c lo th ing , and as ked appel lan t t o ex it the v ehi cl e s o tha t he coul d bet ter deter mine if he w as int ox ic ated. Ap pel lan t had troubl e standi ng and used the door of the
v ehi cl e to ste ady

hi msel f as he ex it ed. Off icerR hodes pl aced appel lan t i n the bac ks eat of his pol ic e c ar

and ra dio ed for back up. Shor tl y thereafter , addit ion al off ic ers arr iv ed on the s cene to en sure tha t “ nothi ng happen ed w it h the othe r occ upant of the v ehi cl e.” W hil e appel lan t w as tal ki ng i n the bac k o f the pol ic e c ar , O ff ic er R hodes noti ced a strong odor

of alc ohol on a ppel lan t’ s b re ath, that his ey es w er e bl oodsh ot an d g las sy , and tha t his spee ch w as slurred. App ellant provided Off icer Rhod es w ith som e ba sic conta ct infor mati on and sta ted t hat h e had not b een dr ink ing

. Off ic er R hodes tes ti fied th at atthat p o i n t , h e b e l i e v e d a p p e l l a n t w a s i n t o x i c a t e d

. O ffi c e r R h o d e s p l a c e d a p p e l l a n ti n h a n d c u ffs and took him to the city dete ntion cente r to a dm inister the st and ardized f ield sobriet y test in a c ontroll ed env ironment. At t he det enti on c enter , app ell ant re f used the fie ld sobr iet y tes t, as w ell as the br eath tes t, despi te be ing w ar ned t hat a fail ur e to compl y w it h the tes t c oul d resul t i n a
sus pensi on of hi s dri v er ’s lic ense. Off ic er Rhodes f urther

testi fied that refusi ng the tes tsAt t he g ui l t
- i nnocen ce phase of t he t r i al t he f ol l owi ng di al ogue, and absence oft he r epor t per t ai ni ng 1 t o t hese quest i ons, pr ev ent ed O ff i cer R hodes f r om answer i ng t he q uest i on p er t ai ni ng t o ap pel l ant ’ s al l eged i nj ur i es: D ef ense C ounsel : ... And y ou al so asked hi m i f he had any phy si cal def ect s, and he t ol d y ou, ye s , a le g a n d b a c k in j u r y? T ria l J u d g e : D o y o u h a v e a c o p y o f th e r e p o rt? W o u l d yo u li k e to lo o k a t yo u r re p o rt to refres h y ou r r ec ol l ec t i on , O ffi c er? O ff i cer R hodes: Yes, m a’ am , I woul d. D ef ense C ounsel : I m ay not hav e t hat one
. T r i al Judg e: M r
. Fei l , do y ou? P ros ec utor: N o, Yo ur H on or. D efe ns e C ou ns el : I do n’ t ha ve t ha t pa rt of i t , Yo ur H on or. T r ia l J u d g e : O k a y. D e f e n s e C o u n s e l: B u t in g e n e r a l, O ff ic e r , d o yo u r e m e m b e r h im a n s w e r in g yo u r c o r r e c tly? O ffi c er R ho de s : I rem em be r goi ng t hro ug h s om e q ue s t i on s be c au s e I m ark ed i t i n m y rep ort t hat he di d an swer som e of m y que st i ons. Lat er , on r e- di r ect exam i nat i on, t he i ssue o fapp el l ant ’ s al l eged i nj ur i es was r ev i si t ed:

P r o s e c u to r : A n d d o e s th e D e f e n d a n t [a p p e lla n t] in yo u r k n o w le d g e h a v e a n y le g in j u r y? O ff ic e r R h o d e s : N o t— n o t a n y th a t I’m a w a r e o f

. I h a d o n ly m e t M r
. R o w la n d o n e o th e r tim e p rio r to th i s n i g h t. 3 makes i t no les s l ik ely

thatthe tes t s ubj ecti s i ntox ic ated. After l eav ing appel lant at t he detent ion ce nter , O ff ic er R hodes co nduct ed no further i nv est ig ati on of the cas e. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Off ic er Rhodes w as q uest ion ed abou t l eg and back i nju ri es that appel lan t mayhav e had, but w as unabl e to answ er the q uest ion

. He tes ti fied that t he 1 fact th at appe llant strug gled to g et ou t of the Corvette con v ertible m ay have bee n be cause the c ar i s p arti cul ar ly

l ow to the g ro und and many peopl e w oul d req uire s uppor t w hen exiting . He also state d tha t driv ing a convertible could have an e f fect on the ap pea rance of the dri v er ’s ey es. How ev er , duri ng re- directex aminat ion , Off ic er Rhodes testi fied th at he w as not a w are of

a ppe llant’s alleged injuries. I t w as his opin ion tha t app ellant had lost4

the n or mal use of his mental and phy si cal facul ti es w hil e operat in g a m otor v ehi cl e i n a publ icpl ace. II. D I S CUS S I ON B y a s i n g l e i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e s t h e fa c t u a l s u ffi c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d ence to suppo rthi s c onv ic ti on. Spec ific ally , he cont ends the e v ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o prov e he
w as int ox ic ated at t he ti me of the s top. A . St and ard o f Rev iew In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , only

a si ng le q uest ion m ustbe answ er ed: “C onsi der ing a ll o f

t h e ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w as a j ur y rati onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng guilt bey ond a reason able dou bt? ” Gr otti v. State, 273 S. W .3d 2 73, 2 83 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. There ar e tw o di ff er ent w ay s t hat ev ide nce can be found factual ly i nsuffici ent: ( 1) if the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on is too w eak to suppor t the f actfinder ’s v erdic t, or (2 ) after consi der ing conflic ti ng ev ide nce, the jur y ’s v erdic t i s “ ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d prep ond eran ce of

the evidence .” Laster

v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 512, 518 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2009) ( q uoti ng Watson v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 414- 15 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2006) ). Al so, the c our t o f a p p e a ls mus t defer

to the fin din g s o f the j ur y . Id

. The cour

t of cr imi nal app eals ha s esta blished three “‘basic groun d rules’ imple me nting this stan dard .” Id

. Fi rs t, the a ppel lat e c our

t mus t c onsi der

all of the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, as oppos ed to i n a li g ht mos t fav or abl e to the v erdic t. Id

. Next, the a ppel lat e c our t, “may onl y find t he evidence f actu ally

insuf f icient w hen nece ssaryto ‘prevent ma nifest injust ice.’” Id . ( q uoti ng Cai n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 404 , 407 (T ex. Crim. App . 199 7)). Fi nally, the app ellate court must ex plain wh y

the ev ide nce is ei ther too w eak to s uppor

t t he v erdic t, or

w hy the confli cti ng ev ide nce g re atl y w eig hs ag ain st the v erdic t. Id

. W hil e a jur y v erdic t i s a ff orded les s d eferenc e i n a fact ual s u f f ici e ncy r ev iew , an appel lat e c our t may not, “ ov er ri de th e5

v erdict simp ly

beca use it disagrees wi th it.” Id

. Lik ew is e, an appell ate cour t may not find the e v ide nce factual ly

i nsuffici ent b ecaus e the re ar e mult ipl e re asona ble ex pla nati ons or theor ies of caus ati on. Steadm an v. St ate , 280 S.W .3d 242 , 247 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09). Our r e v i e w o f a fa c t u a l s u ffi c i e n c y c h a l l e n g e s h o u l d b e e x a mi n e d u n der the p r i n c i p l e s o f re v i e w

fo r a h y p o t h e t i c a l l y

c o r r e c tj u r

y c h ar g e. Grotti , 273 S.W .3d a t 281

. “S uch a c harg e [i s] on e t h a t accuratel y se ts out t he l aw , i s a uthor iz ed by the ind ic tment, does not u nnece ss ar il y i ncrease the State 's burden of proof or unnec ess ar il y r est ri ct the Stat e's theor ies of l iab il it y , and adeq uatel y des cr ibe s t he par

ti cul ar off ense for w hic h the def end ant w as tried.” Vi ll ar re al v. State , 286 S.W .3d 3 21, 3 27 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) (qu o ti n g Ma li

k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 234 , 240 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97)). B. A pp licab le L aw A perso n com mits an of fense if h e or sh e ope rates a mo tor v ehicle in a p ublic place
w hil e i ntox ic ated. Har

tm an v . St ate , 198 S.W .3d 8 29, 8 34 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. dis m’d) ; see T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04(a ) (Verno n 200 3 & Su p p
. 2 0 09).

“ I n t o x i c a t e d ” i s d e fi n e d a s “ n o t h a v i n g t h e n o r ma l u s e o f me n t a l o r p h y s i c a l fa c u l t ies by
reaso n of

the intro duct ion of

alcoho l ....” Id

. § 4 9

. 0 1 (2 )(A) (Verno n 20 03 & Su pp. 200 9). If the Sta te can prove tha t a def end ant has two prev ious DW I convictions, the DW I of fense becomes a felo ny

of the t hird deg re e. Id . § 49. 09(b )(2) ( Verno n 20 03 & Su pp. 200 9). C. A nal ysis The Stat e pres ented ev ide nce show ing that appell ant had tw o pri or D W I c onv ic ti ons and t hat he w as dri v ing a motor ve hic le on a publ icroad. Appel lan t c ontends thatthe Stat e pr esent ed i nsuffici ent e v ide nce on th e i ntox ic ati o n e le m e nt of D W I by onl y ca ll ing one of f icer to tes t ify

w hen othe r of

f icers w ere prese nt atthe scen e of the traf f ic stop. T his Cou rthas st ated that an of ficer ’s testi mony

that a person is i ntox ic ated prov ide s s uff ic ien t6

ev ide nce to establ is h the element of i ntox ic ati on. Har

tm an , 198 S.W .3d a t 835 ; see a lso , Or ti z v. State , No. 13-0 0-00 311 -CR, 2001 W L 89 282 4, at*1 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi July 5, 20 01, p et. dis m’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ; Kuem m el v. State , N o. 13
- 99- 00445- CR , 2000 W L 34411 068, at * 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ne 1, 2000, no p et.) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication). Add itiona lly , testim ony f rom the o the r of f icers pr esentat the sc ene is not n eces sar y bec ause “u ncor ro bor ated tes ti mony of an ar re sti ng of f icer is suf

f icient to prove the elem ent of intoxication.” Little v

. St ate , 853 S.W .2d 1 79, 1 8 3 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Chri st i 1 9 9 3 no w rit ) (ci ti n g Anni s v . St ate , 578 S.W .2d 406, 40 7 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1979) ). Thus , O ff ic er Rhodes ’s testi mony

alone is su ff ic ien t ev ide nce for t h e S t a t e t o s a t i s fy

i t s b u r d e n o f p ro o f. Appel lan t di d nottes ti fy in his ow n defense, theref or e Officer R hodes ’s tes ti mony
w as the p ri mary

so ur ce of ev ide nce at t ri al. W hen app ell ant refused th e fiel d s obr iet y tes ts, Officer

R hodes ’s co ncl usion t h a t app ell ant w as int ox ic ated w as based on o ther ind ic ia, namel y

that : (1 ) appel lan t t ook an unne ces sar il y l ong dis tanc e to sto p hi s v ehi cl e; (2) an odo r of

a lcoho l e ma nat ed f rom app ellant ’s vehicle and p erson ; (3) o pen conta iners of alc ohol w er e presenti n appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e; ( 4 ) a p p ell ant’ s e y es w er e g las sy and blo odsho t; (5 ) appel lan t us e d the car door for s uppor

t w hen ex it ing the v ehi cl e; ( 6) appel lan t’ s s peech w as sl ur re d; ( 7) appel lan t’ s c lot hin g w as dis hev ele d; and (8) appel lan t had no ap pare nt leg or back injuries. Of f icer Rhode s’s testimo ny, w h ich is arg uab ly cont ra ry , rev eal ed th at: ( 1) appel lan t app ear ed c oher ent a nd w as abl e to re spond w hen que st io n ed by

hi m; ( 2) dr iv ing w it h a c onv erti ble top dow n c oul d hav e affect ed th e app eara nce o f

an occu pan t’s e ye s ; a n d ( 3) exi ting a v ehicle so low to the g roun d cou ld require the sup port of

leanin g on th e do or.7

This ca se is si mil ar

to Hask ins v. Stat e, 96 0 S. W .2d 2 07, 2 09 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, no p et.)

. There, the conv ic ti on w as aff ir med despit e the fact t hat H ask ins , t he defendant, did not compl ete a breatha lyz er tes t. The j ur

y ’s dete rmi nati on i n tha t c ase w as made on a pol ic e off ic er ’s tes ti mony of other i ndi ci a of in tox ic ati on, s uch a s t he s mell of alc ohol , slu rred speech , and using the v ehi cl e for su ppor t. Id. at 208. Here, ap pellan t’s alleged leg a n d back injuries w ere no t subst ant iated w ith an y testim ony, and like in Has ki ns , no medic al ev ide nce of these inj ur ies w as prov ide d. See I d. at 209. W e f ind th at th e con trary ev iden ce do es no t great ly outweig h the proof of

app ellant ’s int ox ic ati on. See La ste r 275 S.W .3d a t 518

. Thoug h appel lan t bas ed hi s c hal len g e on the
credi bil it y of t he w it ness ’s tes ti mony , the jur y is the ex cl usi v e jud g e of t he f a ct s, the
credi bil it y

of a w it ness , and the w eig ht t o g iv e the w it ness ’s tes ti mony
. S e e L a ncon v. State , 2 5 3 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t“ a l mo s tc omplet e deferenc e” must be g iv en to a j ur y dec is ion w hen t hat d eci si on i s b ased upon an ev alu ati on of cr edi bil it y ). As st ated pr ev iou sl y , w e w il l not o v ertur n a j ury’s d e te rminati on i n the abse nce o f

a “man ifest injust ice.” Laster , 275 S.W .3d a t 518

. Vi ew ing al l the e v ide nce in a neut ral ligh t, w e find that the e v ide nce suppo rt ing
conv ic ti on i s n ot t oo w eak to s uppor t t he jur y ’s findi ng of g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt , nor i s t he v erdic t ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev id e n ce. See W ats on , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t4 1 7

. T h e r e fo r e , w e h o l d t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e i s fa c t u a l l y s u ffici ent to s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on th at ap pel lan t w as int ox ic ated at t he time of the st op and to s uppor

t t he v erdic t. Appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.8 III
. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 29th day of June, 2010.