I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - KM- 0 1 0 2 4 - CO A

KY LE M I LLI E PL ATT A/ K/ A K YLE M . PLATT A/ K/ A K YLE M I LLE P LATT A/ K/ A K YLE PLATT A/ K/ A K YLE M I LLE’ PLATT AP P EL LA NT

v. S TATE OF M I S S I S S I PP I APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 16/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N H UEY EM FI NG ER CO UR T FROM W HI CH APPEALED : M AD I SON CO UN TY C I RCU I T CO UR T ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: DAV I D S. VAN EVE RY S R. AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY: BI LL Y L. GORE D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - M I S DE M E ANOR T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: CO NVI CT E D OF DR I VI NG UND E R T HE I NF L UE NC E , F I RS T OF F E NS E , AND SEN TEN CE D TO FO RT Y - EI G H T H O U RS, W I TH FO RTY - EI GH T HO UR S S USPEND ED D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 11/ 04/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. I RVI NG, P . J . , F OR THE COURT : ¶ 1 . K y le P latt w a s c h a rg e d w ith d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e , an d th e M a d iso n C o u n ty J us t i ce Courtf

ound hi m gui l ty of

com m on l aw D U I purs uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 63- 11- 30( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2013). P l attappea l ed t o the C ounty C ourtof M adi s on C ounty. D u ri n g tr ial , after P latt’ s b lo o d te st r esu lt s w ere ad m itted in to ev iden ce , the c o u n ty co u rtPl attw as t i cket ed f orthe expi re d- t ag of

f ens e, al though the char ge w as l at er 1 d is m is s e d o n m o tio n b y th e S ta te . 2 gr ant ed the St at e’ s or e t enus m ot i on t o am end Pl att ’ s char ges t o i ncl ude pers e D U I pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 63- 11- 30( 1) ( c) ( R ev. 2013) . T he county courtf ound Pl attgui l ty of

comm on l aw D U I . P l attappea l ed t o the M adi s on C ounty C i r cui tC ourt , w hi ch a ffirm e d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u n ty c o u rt. P latt n o w a p p e a ls th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c irc u it c o u rt, arg u in g th a t (1 ) th e ev id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t t o su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n ; (2 ) th e c o u n ty courterr ed by f

i ndi ng thatther e w as pr obabl e caus e f orthe s t op; ( 3) the county courterr ed by adm i tt i ng the b l oo d tes tr esul t s; and (4) the cou nty courterr ed b y am end i ng the ch arges. ¶ 2 . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i rm. FACTS ¶3. O n N ovember3, 2009, M ark Sandr i dge, a deputy s her i f f of M adi s on C ounty, arr es t ed P latt f o r D U I after st o p p ing P latt f o r driving w ith an ex p ir ed tag. B efo re a rresti n g P latt, 1 D e p u ty S a n d rid g e a d m in iste re d se v e ra l field so b rie ty tes ts, in c lu d in g tw o p o rta b le b re a th t es t s ( PB T ) thatyi el ded posi t i ve r es ul t s . D eputy S andr i dge al s o adm i ni s t er ed the hor i zont al

- gaze - nys t agmus ( H G N ) t es t , t he w al k- and- turn t es t , and t he one- l eg- s t and t es t . Pl attf ai l ed the H G N t es tand t he w al k- and- turn t es t , al though he s ucce s s f ul l y pas s ed the one- l eg- s t and te s t. ¶ 4 . F o llo w in g th e a rre st, D e p u ty S a n d rid g e tra n sp o rte d P latt to th e M a d iso n C o u n ty D e ten tio n C e n ter(M C D C ), w h e re n u rse M ild re d T a y lo r c o llec ted a b lo o d sa m p le f ro m P latt to d eterm ine P latt’ s b loo d -alco h o l- co n ce n tr ati o n (B A C ) l ev el. T ay lor c lea n ed P latt’ s arm3

wi th a n a l c o h o l s wa b p r i o rt o c o l l e c t i n g th e b l o o d s a mp l e . T h e b l o o d t e s tr e v e a l e d a BA C leve l of n ine o n e-h u n d red ths p erc en t ( . 0 9 % ). ¶5 . F o llo w in g sev era l con ti n u an ce s, o n F eb rua ry 9 , 2 0 1 2 , the ju sti ce co u rtfou n d P latt gui l ty of comm on law D U I . Pl attappea l ed, and the ca s e pr ocee ded t o tr i al de novo i n the county court . D ur i ng tr i al , D eputy Sandr i dge t es t i f i ed thathe w as tr avel i ng s outhbound on O l d Cant on Road i n Ri dgel and, M i s s i s s i ppi , w hen he obs erved Pl att , w ho w as trave l i ng ah ea d o f him o n O ld C an ton R o ad , ab rup tl y m erg e into a left- turn lane an d then m ak e a left turn i nt o a K angar oo C r os s i ngs conveni ence s t or e. A ccor di ng t o D eputy Sandr i dge, w hen P latt’s v e h icle m a d e th e a b ru p t le ft in to th e tu rn la n e , h e n o tice d P latt’s e x p ire d tag , an d th is caus ed hi m t o i ni t i at e a tr af f i c s t op. D eputy Sandr i dge parked behi nd Pl att ’ s ve hi cl e i n the s t or e’ s parki ng l otand exi t ed hi s patr ol cart o s peak w i th Pl att , w ho w as att empt i ng t o ent er the s t or e. D eputy Sandr i dge t es t i f i ed thatw hi l e spe aki ng w i th Pl att , he s m el l ed a s tr ong odor o f alc o h o l on P latt’s b re a th an d tha t P latt in fo rm e d h im tha t P latt h a d co n su m e d a lc o h o lic bever ages aboutan hourpr i ort o bei ng s t opped. A ccor di ng t o D eputy Sandr i dge, dur i ng the s t op, he not i ced thatPl att ’ s r ef l exes s eemed “ depr es s ed and s l uggi s h[ , ] [ and] [ h] i s spe ech w as m um bl ed and s l urr ed. ” D eputy Sandr i dge t es t i f i ed thatP l attadm i tt ed thathe had be en dr i vi ng w i th an expi r ed t ag. D eputy Sandr i dge al s o t es t i f i ed thata f

t erhe s t opped Pl att , he n o tic e d a h a lf

-e m p ty , o p e n b e e r c o n ta in e r i n P la tt’ s v e h ic le . ¶ 6 . D u rin g th e S tate ’s c a se , the S tate in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e o f P latt’s b lo o d tes t re su lts thr ough the t es t i m ony of E m i l y J . H arper , w ho anal yzed Pl att ’ s bl ood sampl e and pr epar ed the repo rtof the res ult s of heranal ysi s. T he reportw as adm i tt ed int o ev i den ce. O n cross-4

exami nat i on by Pl att ’ s co un sel , H arpert es t i f i ed thats he had no i ndepende ntknow l edge r egar di ng t he cal i br at i on of the machi ne us ed t o t es tPl att ’ s bl ood s ampl e and thats he w as s ur e thatther e w as a ce rt i f i cat e of cal i br at i on s how i ng the dat e of the l as tcal i br at i on, a lth o u g h s h e w a s u n a b le to p ro d u c e th a t d o c u m e n t a t tr ia l. ¶7. B efor e r es t i ng i t s c as e, the St at e m ade an or e t enus mot i on, ba s ed on the blood tes t r es ul t s , t o amend the cha r ges agai ns tPl at tt o i ncl ude pers e D U I . Pl attobj ect ed t o the a m e n d m e n t o n ju risd ictio n a l g ro u n d s, a rg u in g th a t th e m o tio n to a m e n d c a m e to o late becaus e the St at e had c om pl et ed the pr es ent at i on of i t s evi dence bef

or e movi ng t o amend. T he county courtgr ant ed the St at e’ s m ot i on, f i ndi ng thatthe amendm entw oul d nei ther enhanc e Pl att ’ s char ges norpr ej udi ce Pl att ’ s de f ens e. H ow ever , bef

or e gr ant i ng the mot i on, the county courtgave Pl attt he opt i on of cont i nui ng the ca s e i n or dert o pr epar e hi s def ens e, a n d P la tt d e c lin e d . ¶8. A f

t erthe St at e r es t ed i t s c as e, Pl attt es t i f i ed i n hi s ow n def

ens e. H e t es t i f

i ed thathe w as tr avel i ng northbound on O l d C ant on R oad pr i ort o m aki ng an i ni t i al r i ghtturn f ol l ow ed b y a se c o n d rig h t tu rn in to th e sto re p a rk in g lo t. P latt sta ted th a t h e d id n o t se e D e p u ty Sandr i dge’ s patr ol carunt i l Pl attw as openi ng the doort o ent erthe s t or e. P l attal s o s t at ed thathe had no know l edge of an open be ercont ai nerbe i ng i n hi s ve hi cl e. Pl atti ndi cat ed that he beli eved t he al cohol f r om the s w ab appl i ed by Tayl orm i xed i n w i th hi s bl ood s ampl e, resu lt ing in an inc rea sed B A C leve l. P latt add u ce d test im o n y from K irk R o sen h an , an ex p ert i n the f i el d of D U I . Rosenha n t es t i f

i ed thatthe s w ab may have cont ami nat ed Pl att ’ s bl ood s a m p le a n d m a y h a v e le d to in a c c u ra te re s u lts .5

¶9. A tthe conc l us i on of the evi dence , t he county courtf ound Pl attgui l ty of

comm on l aw D U I onl y. Pl attappea l ed t o the M adi s on C ounty C i r cui tC ourt , w hi ch af f i rm ed. DI S CU S S I ON I . Suf f i ci ency of

the Evi dence ¶ 1 0 . A p e r s o n i s g u ilty o f c o m m o n la w D U I i f h e “ d ri v e [s ] o r o th e rw is e o p e ra te [s ] a v eh icl e . . . u n d er the infl u en ce o f i n tox icati n g l iqu o r. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -11 -30 (1)(a). I n R o b in so n v . S ta te , 794 So. 2d 293, 296 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 2001) ( quot i ng R eed v . Stat e, 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 1 (¶ 3 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 )), th is C o u rt sta ted : T h e sta n d a rd o f re v iew fo r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e is le g a lly s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on i n a ca s e tr i ed w i thouta j ury i s the s ame as the s t andar d of

r evi ew i ng a de ni al of

a mot i on f

ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng th e v e rd ict. T h is C o u rt m a y o n ly rev e rse “w h e re o n e o r m o re o f th e e lem e n ts o f th e o ffe n se ch a rg e d is l a c k in g to su c h a d e g re e tha t rea so n a b le ju ro rs c o u ld o n ly h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty .” T h is c o u rtis re q u ir e d to v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n . Id . a t ( ¶ 1 6 ). ¶ 1 1 . In th is c a se , D e p u ty S a n d rid g e tes tified th a t h e n o tice d P latt’s e x p ire d tag w h e n P latt abrupt l y m er ged i nt o a l ef t - turn l ane a nd then turned int o t he parki ng l otof a conve ni ence s t or e. P l attadm i tt ed thathe had consumed al cohol i c bever ages aboutan hour pr i ort o bei ng s t opped and thathe ha d been dr i vi ng w i th an expi r ed t ag. A s s t at ed, Pl atthad no expl anat i on f orthe open be ercont ai nerf ound i n hi s ve hi cl e on the ni ghthe w as a rr es t ed. A ddi t i onal l y, P latt a c k n o w le d g e s th a t th e o n ly fie ld so b rie ty tes t h e p a ss e d w a s th e o n e -le g -sta n d tes t, al though he i ns i s t s thatpas s i ng the one- l eg- s t and t es ti s evi dence thathe w as notdr i vi ng6

underthe i nf

l uence of al cohol . A s not ed, D eputy Sandr i dge t es t i f i ed thatPl att ’ s s peec h w as s l urr ed and thatPl atts w ayed back and f orth a s he and Pl attconver s ed i n the s t or e’ s parki ng lot. A ft er rev iew ing the re co rd, w e find that the e v iden ce w as su ffi cien t t o su stai n P latt’ s D U I c o n v ic tio n . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . P r obabl e C aus e ¶12. “‘ D et erm i nat i ons of r eas onabl e sus pi ci on and probabl e caus e shoul d be r evi ew ed de novo. ’ W hi l e w e r evi ew the l ow ercourt ' s l egal concl us i ons r egar di ng pr obabl e caus e de novo, w e ‘ m us taccep tt he f act [ - ] f i ndi ngs thatl ed the l ow ercourtt o thatl egal concl us i on unl es s t her e i s cl earerr ori n thos e f act [ - ] f i ndi ngs . ’ ” M

a rtin v . S ta te , 43 So. 3d 533, 534 ( ¶4) ( M i s s . Ct . App. 2 01 0) ( c i t a t i on s o mi tt e d) . “ A s a g e ne r a l matt e r , the d e c i s i on t o s t op a n a u to m o b ile is r e a so n a b le w h e re th e p o lice h a v e p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t a tra ffic vi ol at i on has occurr ed. ” Mo sle y v . S ta te , 89 So. 3d 41, 46 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( quot i ng W

hr en v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 7 U .S . 8 0 6 , 8 1 0 (1 9 9 6 )) . ¶ 1 3 . H e re , D e p u ty S a n d rid g e tes tified th a t h e n o tice d P latt’s e x p ire d tag w h e n P latt a b ru p tly m e rg e d into a le ft-tu rn lan e an d the n tur n e d into the sto re ’s p a rk in g lo t. D e p u ty Sandr i dge s t at ed thatthi s obs ervat i on c aus ed hi m t o s t op Pl att . O n appeal , Pl attar gues that D eputy Sandr i dge l acke d pr obabl e caus e t o s t op h i m becaus e D eputy Sandr i dge w as tra v e lin g n o rth b o u n d o n O ld C a n to n R o a d w h ile h e w a s tra v e lin g so u th b o u n d . P latt in sis ts thati tw as i m pos s i bl e f orD eputy Sandr i dge t o have s een hi s expi red t ag beca us e he a nd D eputy Sandri dge w er e tr avel i ng i n oppos i t e di r ect i ons . H ow ever , thi s ar gum entbel i es P latt’s o w n a d m iss io n , m a d e d u rin g th e tra ffic s to p a s w e ll a s d u rin g tria l in th e c o u n ty c o u rt,7

that h e w as d ri v ing w ith an ex p ir ed tag o n the n igh t h e w a s a rre sted for D U I. M o reo v er, w h e n th e e v id e n c e is c o n flictin g , it is th e p ro v id e n c e o f th e fa c t-fin d e r to re so lv e th e c o n flict. Se e L a n gsto n v . S ta te , 791 So. 2d 273, 280 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) ( ci t i ng B i l l i otv. S ta te , 45 4 S o. 2d 44 5, 46 3 (M i ss. 19 84 )) . H ere the con fl i ct i ng ev i den ce w as r esol ved against P la tt. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. III. B lo o d

T e st R e su lts ¶14. “The st andar d of r evi ew foradm i s s i on of evi dence i s abus e of di s cr et i on. ” D ebr ow v . S ta te , 972 So . 2 d 55 0, 5 52 (¶6) ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Sm ith v . S ta te , 839 So. 2d 489, 494 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . 2003) ) . “[ R ] ever s al w i l l be appr opr i at e onl y w hen an abuse of di s cr et i on r es ul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce t o the ac cus ed occ ur s. ” W a sh v . S ta te , 79 0 S o. 2d 85 6, 85 8 (¶5) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2001) ( quot i ng S tu rd iva n t v. S ta te , 7 4 5 S o . 2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 (¶ 1 0 ) ( M is s . 1 9 9 9 )) . ¶15 . P l at targues that the co un ty co urterr ed b y ad m i tt i ng the b loo d testres ult s becau se th e r e wa s u n c o n tr a d i c t e d , u n c o n t e s t e d e v i d e n c e th a tth e b l o o d s a mp l e u s e d t o t e s th i s BA C l evel w as cont ami nat ed. Pl attas ks us t o f i nd that“a re as onabl e doubtand more has been r ai s ed aboutthe val i di ty and trus tw orthi nes s of the bl ood t es tr es ul t s cons i der i ng the cont ami nat i on of

the bl ood. ” I n r es pons e, the St at e ar gues thatPl attfai l ed t o obj ectt o the admi s s i bi l i ty orr el i abi l i ty of the bl ood t es tresul t s duri ng tr i al , and thatPl atti s , ther ef or e, pr ocedur al l y barr ed f

r om r ai s i ng thi s i s s ue on appe al . A ddi t i onal l y, the St at e poi nt s outthat P la tt a ls o fa ile d to o b

je c t to th e S ta te ’s fa ilu re to p re s e n t T a y lo r a t tr ia l. ¶ 1 6 . T h e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t P latt lo d g e d a “ c o n tin u in g o b jec tio n ” to th e b lo o d tes t re su lts on the gr ound thatthe evi dence a ttr i al di d nots how thatthe machi ne us ed t o t es thi s bl ood8

had bee n pr oper l y cal i br at ed. A ttr i al P l attobj ect ed t o adm i s s i on of the bl ood t es tr es ul t s on the bas i s thatthe m achi ne us ed t o a nal yze the bl ood s ampl e al l egedl y had n ot be en cal i br at e d. O n a pp e a l , h e a r gu e s tha ta dmi s s i on was i mpr op e rb e c a us e the s a mpl e w as a lleg e d ly c o n ta m in a te d . It is w e ll-se ttl e d law th a t o n e c a n n o t o ffe r a n d a rg u e o n a p p e a l a d if fe re n t b a s is th a n w h a t w a s o ff e re d a t tria l in o b

je c tin g to a d m is s io n o f e v id e n c e . R a tcliff v . S ta te , 9 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 7 (¶ 1 1 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h a t is e x a c tly w hatPl atti s att empt i ng t o do w i th hi s ar gum enton appea l thatthe tr i al courterr ed by a d m itt in g th e re su lts o f th e b lo o d sa m p le b e c a u se o f o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f its cont ami nat i on. T her ef

or e, w e agr ee w i th t he St at e thathe i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om r ai s i ng this i ssu e o n ap p ea l. P ro c e d u ra l b ar n o tw ith stan d ing , w e d o n o t f ind that the c o u n ty co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n a dm i tt i ng the bl ood t es tr es ul t s . T her e w as a m pl e evi dence thatthe s ampl e w as notcont ami nat ed and thatthe machi ne used t o anal yze the bl ood s ampl e had b e e n p ro p e rl y c a lib ra te d . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. IV . A m e n dm e n t ¶ 1 7 . A s p re v io u sly ind ica ted , se c tio n 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 (1 )(a ) m a k e s it “ u n law fu l fo r an y p e rso n to dr i ve orotherw i s e oper at e a vehi cl e . . . underthe i nf l uence of i nt oxi cat i ng l i quor . ” Sect i on 63- 11- 30( 1) ( c) m akes i t“unl aw f ul f orany person t o dr i ve orotherw i s e oper at e a ve hi cl e. [ w i th] an al cohol conce ntr at i on of ei ghtone- hundr edths per cent( . 08% ) orm or e f orper s ons w ho ar e above the l egal age. ” ¶ 1 8 . In a c a s e c ite d e x te n s iv e ly b y P la tt, Young v. Ci t y of B r ookhave n , 693 So. 2d 1355, 1357 ( M i s s . 1 99 7), t he St at e pr os ecut ed a de f endantf orboth comm on l aw D U I ( under9

s e c tio n 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 (1 )( a )) a n d p e r s e D U I ( u n d e r s e c tio n 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 (1 )( c )) . Id . T he def endant w a s c o n v icte d o f D U I a n d h e a p p e a led , arg u in g th a t th e S tate ’s p ro se c u tio n u n d e r b o th s u b s e c tio n s p re

ju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . Id . T h ere , after ex tens ive a n alys is, o u r sup rem e c o u rt fo u n d n o m e rit in th e d e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t an d h e ld th a t “[s e c tio n ] 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 m e re ly se ts f orth num er ous m ethods of comm i tt i ng the s ame cr i m e. ” Id . a t 1 3 5 8 . ¶19. I n W

a tts v . S ta te , 828 S o. 2d 835, 842 (¶ 19) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002) , thi s courts t at ed, “[ A n amendm ent ] i s perm i s s i bl e i f i tdoe s notmat er i al l y al t erf act s w hi ch ar e the es s ence of th e o ffe n se . . . as . . . o rig in a lly [c h a rg e d ] o r m a te ria lly a lter a d e fe n se to [a c h a rg e ] as it o ri g in a lly s to o d s o a s to p re ju d ic e th e d e fe n d a n t’ s c a s e .” ¶20. O n app eal , Pl attar gues that“[ o] ne w oul d as s um e thaton an appe al of the comm on law co n v ict ion , b eing a tri al de n o v o , th ere w o u ld o n ly b e a retri al of the [j ] u sti ce [c] o u rt ’s tr ial p u rsua n t t o the c o m m o n law [- ] D U I ch arg e.” H e ins ist s tha t t o all o w the c o u n ty co u rt t o a m end the char ges “w oul d be a r eturn t o a tr i al by ambush. ” I n r es pons e, the St at e ar gues that there is no d ist inction b etw e e n c o m m o n law D U I an d p er se D U I th at w o u ld su p p o rt Pl att ’ s ar gum entthathe r ece i ved an unf ai rt r i al . T he St at e al s o ar gues thatthi s i s s ue i s m oot becaus e the county courtdi d notf i nd Pl attgui l ty of

pers e D U I . W e agr ee. ¶21. T he county courtal l ow ed the cha r ges t o be amended t o r ef l ectthe evi dence pr es ent ed dur i ng tr i al , and the amendm entdi d notm at er i al l y al t erthe cha r ges m ade a gai ns tPl attorthe essence of the o ff

ense that Pl at tw as charged w i th. A l tho ug h P l at targues that hi s defense w as pr ej udi ced be caus e he w as notgi ven an opportuni ty t o “att ack[ ] the machi ne, [ and p re s e n t] p o s s ib le e x p e rtte s tim o n y o n is s u e s o f s c ie n c e a s c o m p a re d to c o m m o n la w D U I,”10

the r ecor d s how s otherw i s e. D ur i ng tr i al , Pl atta dduced t es t i m ony f r om H arperr egar di ng the cert i f i cat i on of

the machi ne us ed t o t es thi s bl ood. Fur therm or e, Pl attadduce d t es t i m ony, thr ough R os enhan, i n an att emptt o c ontr adi ctthe bl ood t es tr es ul t s . A ddi t i onal l y, al though gi ven an opportuni ty t o do s o, Pl attdecl i ned t o acce ptt he court ’ s off ert o cont i nue the tr i al t o all ow him t i m e t o p rep are a n y ad dit i on al defense he m ay h ave d eem ed n ecessary as a re s u lt o f t h e a m e n d m e n t. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ff irm . ¶22. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE C I RC UI T C OU RT OF M AD I S ON CO UN T Y O F CONVI CT I ON OF DRI VI NG UNDE R T HE I NF LU EN CE , F I RS T OF F EN S E, AND S EN TE NCE OF F ORTY - EI GHT HOURS , W I TH F ORTY - EI GHT HOURS S USP ENDED, I S AFF I RM ED. ALL CO S TS O F THI S APPEAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO T H E A P P E L L A N T . LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L A ND F AI R, J J . , CONCUR. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.