1

NO. 06-14-00105-CR

____________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SIXTH DISTRICT

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________

TIMOTHY BATES, Appellant

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________________________________________________

APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER CR1301437

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

OF HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________

STATE’S BRIEF

____________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now The State of Texas, and submits this brief pursuant to the provisions of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in support of her request that the conviction be affirmed in 

Cause No. 06-14-00105.

ACCEPTED

06-14-00105-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/6/2015 1:46:42 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/6/2015 1:46:42 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .....................................................................................................4

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................5

ARGUMENT............................................................................................................................... 5-6

State’s Response to Point of Error Number One........................................................ 5-6

The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction 

of driving while intoxicated. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .................................................................................................... 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 8
3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATE CASES:

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 ........................................................................5,6

Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131, 120 

S.Ct. 2008, 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ...............................................................................................5

Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).........................................................5

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN., §49.01 ..........................................................................................6

TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN., §49.04 ...........................................................................................6
4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was tried and convicted by a jury of Driving While Intoxicated in the Hunt 

County Court at Law #2 on May 13, 2014. The Court assessed punishment at 180 days in the 

Hunt County jail, probated for twelve months with a fine of $400 plus court costs, as well as 50 

hours of community service. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State accepts as true Appellant’s Statement of Facts with the following 

supplementation.

Phillip Erickson, a clerk at the Kwik-Check Convenience Store in Greenville, TX, was 

accosted by the Appellant on the evening of September 1, 2013 at approximately 1 a.m. 

(Reporter’s Record, herein R.R., Vol. 2, pp. 24, 25). After a conversation with the Appellant at 

the counter, Mr. Erickson decided to call the non-emergency line of the Greenville Police 

Department to report that he believed Appellant to be intoxicated. (R.R. Vol. 2, p. 30). This was 

not something that Mr. Erickson did often. Id. Mr. Erickson was scared due to Appellant’s 

intoxication and behavior. Id. at 32-33. He attributed Appellant’s behavior to intoxication, not to 

nervousness. Id. at 44. 

Officer Brandon West of the Greenville Police Department initiated a stop based on the 

report from the clerk. Id. at 52. Officer West testified that once the stop was initiated and 

Appellant was removed from the vehicle, he brought a Snickers candy bar with him, which 

struck Officer West as odd. Id. at 53. Officer West had to give the instructions for the HGN 

several times before Appellant was able to comply. Id. at 54. Officer West testified that he 

observed six out of the six total “clues” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Id. at 60. 

Appellant told Officer West during the stop that he had taken prescription medication earlier that 

evening. Id. at 74. An arrest was made based on the totality of the circumstances of Officer 
5

West’s investigation. Id at 79. 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain conviction. The jury was able to base its 

decision to convict on numerous pieces of evidence, including the testimony of a lay witness, a 

police officer’s testimony, video evidence, and the defendant’s own statements. The court must 

defer to the jury’s decision to convict after weighing all the evidence. 

ARGUMENT: STATE’S RESPONSE TO POINT OF ERROR ONE

Legal Sufficiency of Evidence

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational fact finder could have found the 

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 

99 S.Ct. 2781. This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve 

conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic 

facts to ultimate facts. Id., at 319. Thus, when performing a legal sufficiency review, the court

may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute its judgment for that 

of the factfinder. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 

U.S. 1131, 120 S.Ct. 2008, 146 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000). Instead, the court should “determine 

whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force 

of all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Hooper v. State, 214 

S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). the court should presume that the factfinder resolved 

any conflicting inferences in favor of the conviction and defer to that resolution. Jackson, 443 

U.S. at 326, 99 S.Ct. at 2793; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. 
6

Driving While Intoxicated 

The law states that a person is guilty of driving while intoxicated if they (1) operate a 

motor vehicle (2) in a public place (3) while intoxicated. TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN., §49.04

Intoxication is defined as (a) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason 

of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of 

two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (b) having an alcohol 

concentration of 0.08 or more. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.01. 

Analysis

Based on the evidence presented to the jury, a rational jury could have convicted based 

on the evidence presented. There was testimony of Appellant’s odd behavior from both the store 

clerk and the officer who made the stop. There was evidence of the results of the standardized 

field sobriety tests, which indicated intoxication. The jury was able to watch a dashcam video of 

the incident and observe Appellant as he appeared on that evening. After viewing all of this 

evidence, the jury came to the conclusion that Appellant was guilty of driving while intoxicated 

beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was allowed to accept or reject some or all of the testimony 

given by both of state’s witnesses. Instead, they chose to resolve the case in favor of the 

prosecution. The court should not overturn the conviction because it is not irrational for a jury to 

find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of driving while intoxicated based on 

the evidence before them, as is the standard put forth by the Jackson court.
7

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

It is for the reasons contained herein, that the State would respectfully pray that this Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth District affirm the conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Respectfully submitted,

JOEL D. LITTLEFIELD

Hunt County Attorney

P.O. Box 1097

Greenville, TX 75403-1097

(903) 408-4112 - telephone

(903) 408-4297 - fax

By:/s/Joseph T. O’Neill_______

 Joseph T. O’Neill

 Assistant County Attorney

 State Bar No. 24076953

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I certify that this document brief/petition was prepared with Microsoft Word 2012, and that, 

according to that program’s word-count function, the sections covered by TRAP 9.4(i)(1) contain 

940 words.

Sincerely,

/S/_JOSEPH T O’NEILL__

JOSEPH T. O’NEILL

Assistant County Attorney of Hunt County

State Bar Number – 24076953

Hunt County Courthouse

P.O. Box 1097

Greenville, Texas 75403-324

(903) 408-4112

(903) 408-4297 Fax
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was 

forwarded to counsel for Appellant, Jessica Edwards, on this the 6th day of April, 2015 via email.

/s/Joseph T. O’Neill_______

Joseph T. O’Neill

Assistant County Attorney