NO. 07-07 -031 0-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER25, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ CHRISTO PHER LEE SIMPSON JR., APP ELL ANT
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 1 O F W IL L IA MS ON COU NT Y;

NO. 06-49 34-1 ; HON. SUZANNE BROOKS, PRE SIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. Memorandum Opinion Appel lan t, Chr is topher

Lee Si mpson, Jr. , app eal s h is co nv icti on for the o ffense of dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ate d a n d s entenc e of in carcerati on for 365 days i n the W il li amson C ou nty J ai l

. W e affi r m. Back g ro und
On J une 13, 2006, at around 4:15 a.m., appel lan t was seen dr iv ing hi s t ru ck on a pub lic road in W illiamson Count y byOf f icer Anth ony Catalan o. Catala no was sitting in his2

patrol car

moni tor ing traff icw hen he saw appel lan t dr iv e pas t a t wha t C atal ano bel iev ed to be a s peed w ell ov er the post ed speed li mit of 60 mi les per hour

. Cat ala no th en us ed the radar dev ic e i n hi s p atrol car

to confir m that appel lan t was speed ing

. Acc ordin g to the rada r, appe llant w as traveling a ta s p e ed o f 74 m iles per hou r. On the ba sis of this infor mati on, Cat ala no ini ti ated a traff ic sto p of ap pel lan t. Upo n approachi ng ap p e lla n t, Cat ala no s mell ed th e odor of alc ohol co ming from i nsi de th e v ehicl e a nd obs er v ed th at appel lan t’ s e y es w ere red and had a “g lo ss y” a p p e a rance. As a resul t, Cat ala no as ked app ellantto step out of the vehicle. Catalan o pe rforme d f ield sob rietytests (herea f ter, “F ST”)on a ppel lan t. On all three te sts , C atal ano obs er v ed clue s of intox ic ati on. Cat ala no then pla ced appel lan t und er arrestfor

dri v ing w hil e intox ic ated. Once he was transpo rt ed to th e st a ti o n , a p p e lla n t re f u se d to pro vide a b re a th sa m p le fo r te st in g. Appel lan t was charg ed w it h the offense of dr iv ing w hil e int ox ic ated. The i nformati on further al leg ed th at ap pel lan t had been prev iou sl y conv icted of a dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated offense. Pr ior

to tr ial , app ell ant fil ed two moti ons to s uppress ev ide nce. Thes e moti ons challen ged Catalo na’s reaso nab le suspicion to stop app ellant , Catalo na’s probab le cause to ar re st appel lan t, and t he admiss ibi li ty of anystatement s made by appel lan t dur ing the inv est ig ator

y d e tention or

w hil e under

ar re st. Pr ior

to the b eg inn ing of the t ri al, the tr ial cour t hea rd appel lan t’ s mot ion s. Al l of the te sti mony el ic it ed dur ing this heari ng rela ted t o Catalo na’s reaso nab le suspicion for t he stop

. P rior to ruling on the m otion s, the trial court spec ific all y

as ked a p p e ll ant i f he w as li miti ng hi s mot ion to suppress to the i ss ue of the re asona ble su spi ci on for the s top a nd appe ll ant c onfir med thatthi s was the o nly i ss ue heW hile ap pellan t’s issue challen ges the den ial of the mo tion to supp ress, the record 1 re flect s t hat t he propr iety of the F ST w as not a dv anced by appel lan t atthe suppress ion hea ring and thatapp ella n t af f irmatively

w aived presen tatio n of this issue as pa rt of

his mo tion to supp ress. As such, we w ill rev iew this issue as a cha llenge to the trial court’s ov er ru li ng of appel lan t’ s o bje cti on to C atal ona’ s t est imony aboutthe re sul ts of the F ST. 3 w as chal len g ing by

w ay of the moti ons. The tr ial cour t then ov er ru led appel lan t’ s mot ion s and the case procee ded to trial.
Dur ing the tr ial , C atal ona t est ified as to the b asi s for hi s s top o f appell ant a s well as his admi nis trati on of the FST. Appel lan t obj ect ed to C atal ona’ s t est imony r e gar d ing the FST based on appel lan t’ s all eg ati on that Cat alo na faile d to foll ow the sta ndards re q uired in adm inistering the FST . Th e trial court overruled app ellant ’s o bje c t io n . Bycrossex aminat ion , app ell ant q uest ion ed C atal ona abo ut the basi s for his sto p of appel lan t and the met hod of hi s admini strati on of t he FST. At the cl ose of ev ide nce, appel lan t req uest ed that the j ur

y ch arg e i ncl ude a spec ificparag ra ph disc uss ing the burden of proof req uired to c onv ict app ell ant. After hear ing arg ument on thi s i ss ue, t he tr ial co urt den ied the requeste d instructio n. T he jury returne d a verdict find ing appe llant guilty a nd the trial court assesse d his pun ishm entat 365 days i ncarce ration in the W illiamson Count y Jail. By three issu es, app ellantch allenges th e judgme nt an d sen ten ce. App ellant ’s first issue con ten ds tha t the trial court erred in denying app ellant ’s motio n to sup press evidence based on t he i ll eg ali ty

of Cat alo na’ s s top o f appell ant. Appel lan t’ s sec ond i ss ue c hal len g es the trial court ’s d e n ia l of app ellant ’s motio n to sup press evidence base d on Catalon a’s failu re to proper ly

admi nis ter

the FST. By

his final is sue, appell ant conte nds that the t ri al 1
cour t er re d i n deny ing appel lan t’ s req uestthatan addit ion al in str uct ion be inc lud ed in t he jur y ch arg e.4 Motion to Sup press By his firs t is sue, appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing hi s mot ion to sup p re s s ev iden ce ob taine d as a result o f Catalon a’s stop of

app ellantbeca use Cat alo na l ack ed reason abl e s uspi ci on for the sto p. The Stat e respon ds that Cat alo na had the req uis it e reason abl e s usp i c i on bas ed on his v is ual es ti mate t hat a ppel lan t was trav eli ng in ex ces s o f the pos ted s peed l imi t and t h e c o n firmat ion thatappel lan t was speed ing provided by C ata lona ’s in-car rada r. Generall y , a tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a moti on to suppress is rev iewed byan abuse of di s c re t io n st and ard. See Oles v . Stat e, 99 3 S.W .2d 103 , 106 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9); Madd ox v . Stat e, 68 2 S.W

. 2 d 563 , 564 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 5). W het her the trial court abu sed its discretion dep end s upo n w het her, g iv en th e record an d the law , its decision fell outs ide the z one of re asona ble dis ag re ement. See Beni tez v . Stat e, 5 S.W .3d 915, 918 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 1999 , pet . ref ’d). How ever, if the facts de term inative of the m otion are und ispute d, the n the rev iew is de n ovo . See O les , 993 S.W .2d a t 106 ; G uz man v . St ate, 955 S. W .2d 8 5, 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. A pol ic e off ic er

m ay stop and temporar il y

detain an i ndi v idu al w hom he s uspects of cr imi nal acti v ity

as l ong as the off ic er

has a “reason abl e s uspi ci on th at s ome acti v ity out of the ordin ar

y i s o cc ur ri ng or

has occ ur re d, s ome su g g est ion to conne ct the d etai nee w it h t h e u n u s u a l a ct ivi ty, a n d so m e in d ic a t io n t h e u n u s u a l a ct ivi ty is re la t e d t o c ri m e . ” G a rza v . St ate, 771 S. W .2d 5 49, 5 58 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1989) ( en banc ). A pol ic e off ic er may lawf ully stop an d de tain a person for a traf f ic vio la tion so long as the of f icer has aW e are mi ndful t hat a ppel lan t’ s i ss ue chal len g es Cat alo na’ s reason abl e s uspi ci on 2 to s top a ppel lan t rather than t h e su ff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce to prov e the ex actsp eed at w hic h appel lan t was trav eli ng . W hil e appel lan t’ s a rg ument c oul d v er y w ell affectthe w eig ht to be afforded ev ide nce of the prec is e speed at w hic h appell ant w as trav eli ng justpr ior to Cat alo na s toppi ng the v ehi cl e, t hese arg uments hav e l ittl e i mpact on our re v iew of w hether Ca ta lo n a rea so n a b ly su sp e ct e d th a t a p p e lla n t was sp e e d in g. 5 re asona ble bas is for s uspecti ng an o ffense has been commi tted. McVi ck ers v . St ate, 874 S.W .2d 6 62, 6 64 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993)

. Fur ther , a pol ic e off ic er does not n eed t o k now the ex act spe ed a t w hich an auto mo bile is trav eling in order to m ake a stop for a traf f ic
v i ol at i on . D i l l ard v . St at e, 5 50 S .W .2 d 45 , 53 (Te x .C r i m. Ap p. 1 97 7)( op . on reh ’ g )

. To justif y a tem pora ry

dete ntion , an of

f icer mustarticulate facts wh ic h , i n light of his ex per ien ce and personal kn ow led g e, t og ether w it h reason abl e i nferenc es draw n from thos e facts , woul d w ar ra nt a temporar y i ntr usi on on the f re edom of the person detai ned. W ood s v . Stat e, 95 6 S.W .2d 33, 38 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7).
In th e prese nt case , Catalo na te stif ied, a t the hea ri ng on the mot ion to supp ress, that he v is ual ly

es ti mated t hat a ppel lan t’ s v ehi cl e w as trav eli ng at around 70 mil es per hour , w hic h w as 10 mi les per hour ov er the post ed s peed l imi t. C atal ona t hen us ed hi s i ncar radar to confir m hi s v is ual es ti mate. The radar , w hic h C atal ona t est ified thathe h ad been t ra ine d to use and t hat h e h a d c ali brated for ac curacy at the b eg inn ing of his sh ift, ind ic ated that appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e w as trav eli ng at 74 mi les per hour

. Appel lan t c ontends tha t Catalo na d id nothave reason able suspicion t o stop app ellantbeca use Cat alon a did notuse an y

stand ard m eth odo logy upo n w hich to base his v isual estim ate of app ellant ’s spe e d a n d b e c a u s e t h e a u d i o p o rt i o n o f h i s ra d a r w a s n o t fu n ct i o n i n g a t t he ti me that Cat alo na us ed i t t o c heck appel lan t’ s s peed. 26

An officer ’s v is ual es ti mate of a v ehi cl e’s speed may be suffici ent t o g iv e an off ic er a reason abl e s uspi ci on to sto p the v ehi cl e. See Hes sk ew v . Tex . D ep’ t of Pub. Safety , 144 S.W .3d 1 89, 1 91 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 2004, no p et.) ; I ck e v . St ate, 36 S. W .3d 913, 91 5- 16 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2001, pet. ref’d)

. In addit ion , an off ic er ’s tes ti mony thathe st had bee n bot h trai ned to operate a radar and tes t for it s a cc uracy i s a su ff ic ien t predi cat e to s uppor

t admi ss ion of ra dar

ev ide nce. C ro mer v . St ate, 374 S. W .2d 8 84, 8 87 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 196 4). T hus, we co nclud e tha t Catalo na’s v isual estim ate o f app ellant ’s speed , c onfir med by

hi s i n- car

radar uni t, prov ide d a s uff ic ien t basi s for C atal ona t o re asona bly bel iev e that appel lan t w as v iol ati ng a traff icl aw . Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat Cat alo na pos ses sed suffici ent reason abl e sus pic ion to jus ti fy the sto p of appell ant a nd th e tr ial co urt di d noter r in deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress ev ide nce. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue.

Admis si on of Ev ide nce of Fi eld Sobr iety Tests By his se c o n d i ssue, app ellantconte nds th at th e trial court erred in overruling his o bje ct io n t o Ca t a lo n a ’s t e s t im o n y re ga rd in g t h e a d m in is t ra t io n o f a n d co n c lu s io n s d ra wn from the FST. Spec ific all y , app ell ant cont ends that Cat alo na di d notper form the re q uired mini mum number of pas ses w hil e admi nis ter ing the hor iz ontal g az e nysta g mus t estand adm inistered the walk and turn and one-leg stan d tests on an im prop erly sloped surface and, thus , t he te sts are not rel iab le proof of appel lan t’ s int ox ic ati on. The Stat e c ontends tha t slig ht variations in the adm inistration of the FST doe s not ren der the ev iden ce ina dmis si ble or

unreli abl e, bu t rather

g oes to t he w eig ht t o be afforded t hat e v ide nce.7

A tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t or ex cl ude ev ide nce is re v iewed unde r an abus e of discretion stand ard. S ee W eat herred v. State , 15 S. W .3d 540 , 542 (Tex.Crim.App .20 00); Green v . Sta te, 934 S .W .2d 9 2, 101 -02 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 199 6). Areview ing court shou ld not rev ers e a tr i al j ud g e’ s d ec i s i on w ho s e r ul i ng w as w i th i n th e z on e of reaso nab le dis ag re ement. Green, 934 S. W .2d a t 102

. If the t ri al jud g e's dec is ion i s c orre ct on any theor y of law appl ic abl e to the c ase, the deci si on w il l be s ust ain ed. Stat e v . R oss , 32 S.W .3d 8 53, 8 55- 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

. T he b atte ry

of FST u ti li ze d b y

Catalon a ha v e be en foun d to be reliable indica tors of into x ic ati on, p ro v ide d tha t t he te sts are admi nis tered i n ac cordance w it h the sta ndardiz ed g uid eli nes. See E mers on v . St ate, 880 S. W .2d 7 59, 7 68- 69 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 199 4); Com pto n v . Stat e, 12 0 S.W .3d 375 , 377 (Tex.App .–T e xa rk a n a 20 03, pet. ref ’d). Howev er , s li g ht de v iat ion s from the g uid eli nes in admini ste ri ng the FS T do not render the ev ide nce ina dmis si ble , butmay affectthe w eig ht t o be afforded t he ev ide nce. Se e Co m p to n , 1 2 0 S .W .3 d a t 3 7 8 (cit in g Pr efac e to Nat ’l Hi g hw ay Traff ic Safety Admi n., U. S. Dep’t of Tran sp., DW I DET ECT ION AND STA NDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIET Y T EST ING ST UDENT MANUAL).
In t he presentca se, appel lan t arg ues that Ca tal ona fail ed to per form the re q uis it e number of pa ss es in admini ste ri ng the hor iz ontal g az e ny sta g mus tes t, thus , maki ng the tes t unreli abl e as an i ndi cat or of int ox ic ati on. Howev er , on voir direex aminat ion , C atal ona tes ti fied th at he performed “more than the mini mum” n umber of pass es w hen admi nis ter ing the teston appel lan t. In addi ti on, the tri al cour t indi cat ed that it rev iewed the vi deotape ofAppe llant’s objection to the v ideo tap e w as ba sed o n his mo tion to su ppre ss, w hich 3 w as expressly

limited to Catalon a’s reason able suspicion to justif y t he stop . Appe llant did not o bje ct to t he admi ss ion of t he v ide otape on any g ro unds re lat ing to the a dmini strati on of t he F ST. 8 Cat alo na’ s per

formance of t he te st on appe ll ant b efore ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s o bje cti on. 3 As the c ru x

of the d is pute ov er

the hor iz ontal g az e nysta g mus t est r e la te s to th e deter minat ion of the his tor ic al fact of w hether C atal ona per

formed th e req uis it e number of pass es on appe ll ant for the tes t t o be cons ide re d reli abl e, we w il l af fo rd a lmos t t otal deferenc e to th e t ria l cour t’ s d eter minat ion

. See Lo ser th v . St ate, 963 S. W .2d 7 70, 7 73 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 98). T he trial cou rtwa s f re e to believe or disbelieve Catalon a’s tes ti mony

thathe per

formed more than the mini mum number of pass es in admini ste ri ng the t eston a ppel lan t and w e w il l not d is tur b the tr ial co urt’ s d e te rm inati on th at t he hor iz ontal g az e nysta g mus t estw as admini ste re d i n c ompli ance with the st andardiz ed re q uirements for t he te st absen t a show ing of a n a b u se of dis creti on. See R oss , 32 S.W .3d a t 858

. As to t he walk

and tur n and one- leg st and t est s, appel lan t c ontends thatthe g ro und upo n w hich Cata lona performe d the t e s t s wa s n ot level and th at th is inv alidat es the test re sul ts. Ca t a l o n a t e s t i fi e d t h a tt h e s u r fa c e u p o n w h i c h h e a d mi n i s t e re d t h e s e t e s t s w as re asona bly

flat. B y wayof further ex pla nati on, C atal ona t est ified that , “ I s ay i t was re asona bly

flat becau se w hen we are s tandi ng out there I coul d not feel the w eig ht of the sl ope. I coul d not feel m y w eig ht if I was sta ndi ng on a flat sur face.” I n addi ti on, t he tr ial cour t s aw ev ide nce of the slop e of the g ro und upo n w hic h the se tes ts w ere per formed bot h in pictures offered by

appel lan t and i n the v ide otape of the per formance of t he F ST. The9

cr ux of the d is pute reg ardin g the admini strati on of thes e tes ts is the factual dete rmi nati on of w het her the slope of

the surface u pon which t hese t ests w ere ad min istered w ere such “slig ht de v iation s” that the tests rem aine d v alid indica tors of intoxication. As ab ove, w e w ill afford almosttotal deferenc e to the tr ial court ’s factual dete rmi nati on. Loser th, 963 S. W .2d at 77 3. T he trial cou rt w as f ree to b elieve or disbelieve Catalona ’s testimo ny tha t the w alk and t ur n and one- leg st and were per fo rm e d on a reason abl y flat sur face and w e w il l not dis tur b the tr ial co urt’ s i mpli ci t deter minat ion that the slope w as a sli g ht dev iat ion f ro m the sta ndard and did not inv ali date the t est s a bsent a show ing of an abuse of di sc re ti on. See Ros s, 32 S. W .3d a t 858

. Beca use a ppe llant ha s failed to e stab lish t hatt he trial cou rt abuse d its discretion in ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s obj ect ion to the ev ide nce of t he FST, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd is sue. Jur y Ins tr uct ion By his third issue, app ellantconte nds th at th e trial court erred in de nying his req uest that an addi ti onal jur

y ins tr uct ion be inc lud ed in the j ur y ch arg e. Appel lan t req uest ed th at the t ri al cour

t i ncl ude t he foll ow ing l ang uag e i n the ch arg e: You are f urthe r instructed thaty ou ca nno t convict the de fend ant in this case unl ess y ou bel iev e from t he e vidence beyond a re asona ble doubtthatthe defendant di d operate a m otor ve hic le in a publ icplace w it hin the Cou nty of W illiamson and State of Te x as as alleged in the indictm entor as alleged in the i n fo rm a ti o n and unl ess y ou furt her bel iev e the ev ide nce bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt th a tt he d efend antw as into x icated at the v erytime h e is alleged to have o p e ra t e d sa id mo tor v ehicle. And if y ou h ave reasona ble doubt as to ei ther

of thes e two matt ers, y ou mus t resol v e tha t dou bt i n fav or o f d e fe n d a n ta n d sa y b y yo u r ve rd ic tn o tgu il ty.10

The Stat e respon ds by

hi g hli g hti ng w here i n the c harg e thi s s ame i nformati on i s c onv ey ed and arg ues that appel lan t faile d to show how he w as har med by the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of his req uest

. W e not e tha t t he c harg e tha t was g iv en to the jur y i nst ru cte d the m that : If y ou bel iev e f ro m t h e ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubtthati n the Cou nty of W il li amson and St ate o f Texa s, on or aboutJu ne 13, 2006, the DefendantC hr is topher Lee Si mpson, Jr . di d operate a motor v ehicl e i n a pub lic pla ce w hile he w as into x icated , nam ely by nothaving the no rmal use of mental or

physi cal facul ti es by

reason of the int ro duct ion of alc ohol i nto the bod y , y ou wi ll find the Defend ant“g uilty” as charged, bu t if y ou d o no t so find, or if y ou hav e a reason abl e doubtthereof, y ou w il l acq uitthe Defendant by a v erdict of “ not g uil ty .” Compar ing thi s p arag ra ph of the jur y ch arg e w it h the i nst ru cti on req uest ed by appel lan t re v eal s t hat the re q uest ed ins tr uct ion w as super fluous. The c harg e i nst ru cte d the j ur y as to th e elem ent s of

the of fense , the presum ption of innoce nc e , t h e beyond a rea sona ble doubt sta ndard, an d proper ly appli ed the law

to the fact s i n the appl ic ati on parag ra ph. As suc h, we c annot conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing a p p e lla nt’ s req uest ed ins tr uct ion and w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led each of ap pel lan t’ s is sues , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of t he t ri al cour t. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.