# FILED
April 24, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH 1998 SESS ION

CARL WOMAC, ) C.C.A. 03C01-97 07-CC-00251 ) BRADLEY COUNTY ) Appellant, ) Hon. Carroll L. Ross, Judge ) vs. ) (DRIVING UNDER ) THE INFLUENCE) ) No. 96-526 STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPEL LEE :
CHARLES M. CORN JOHN KNOX WALKUP District Public Defen der Attorney General & Reporter RICHARD HUGHES, JR. GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER Assistant Publ ic Defender Assistant A ttorney General P.O. Box 1453 Cordell Hull Bldg., 2nd Floor Cleveland, TN 37364 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-049 3 JERRY N. ESTES District Att

orney General SANDRA DONA

GHY Assistant District Attorney General P.O. Box 1351 Cleveland, TN 37364

OPINION FILED:_______________
AFFIRMED

CORNELIA A. CLA

RK Special Judge

OPINIONThe defendant appeals as of right his c onviction for drivi ng under the influence of an intoxicant, seco nd offense. He raises a singl e issue - that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s v erdict of guilty on the underlying charge. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t. On July 6, 1996, Clev

eland Police Officer Nathan Thomas w as on routine patrol travel ing west on Cling an Ridge Drive. Between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, as Officer Thomas approached a bar called “Bonnie’s Talk of the Town”, he observed the defendant drive his car out of the bar ’s parking lot and onto Cli ngan Ri dge Dri ve in fr ont of him . Officer

Thomas ob

served the left tires of defendant’s car cross completely over the doubl e yellow center l ine. He followed the car approx imately .2 miles, observ ing that the passenger thr ew something out the window. The defendant then pulled into the Waffle House parking lot. Officer Thomas pul led into the parking lot, parked beside the defendant’s car, and approached the defendant. While he was about two feet away from the defendant, Officer Thomas noti ced that the defendant had the smell of alcohol on his breath. According to the officer, th e defendant initially advised that he had consumed one beer, but later told the officer that he had had two beers. When the defendant exited his vehicle Officer Thomas testified that he was unsteady, tripped over his own feet, and had t o grab onto the door in order to steady himself. Officer Thomas then administered several fiel d sobriety tests, which he testified that defendant failed. Officer Thomas testified that the defendant never mentioned any dis ability. The defendant did say that one leg hurt, and was permitted to attempt the one-leg stand on the o ther leg. He failed both attempts. The defendant refused to submit to a breath test and refused to sign the implied c onsent form. A second officer who c ame to the scene, Jeff Griggs, testified that he saw the defendant attempt to per form one 2 of the field sobriety tests, and that the defen dant did not perform the test very well. Officer Griggs also noticed that the defendant smell ed of alcohol and thathis speech was not clear

. The defendant testified that he had an arthritic condition in his knee which he felt prevented hi m from performing the tests wel l. He also stated that he not had anything to dri nk and that he had not told the officer he had anything to drink. H is passenger, who admitted he was very drunk that evening, testified that he could not remember whether th e defendant had anything to drink. The de fendant’s ex-wife testified that he was with her earlier in the evening and consumed no alcoholic beverages prior to receiving a call to go to Bonnie’s and pick up t he drunk friend. The principles that gov ern our review of a j ury verdict are w ell settled. When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we must rev iew the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the prosecution in determining whether “any ration al trier of fact could have found t he essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 67 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979) . We do not reweigh or reevaluat e the evidence, and are requi red to afford the State the stronges t legitimate view

of the proof contained in the record as well as all reas onable and legitimate inferences which may be dr awn therefrom. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W. 2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Questions c oncerning the credibil ity of witnesses, the weight and value to be given to the eviden ce, as well as factual i ssues raised by the evidence, are r

esolved by trier o

f fact, not this court. Id. It is the appellate court’s duty to affirm the convicti on if the evidence, viewed under these stan dards, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements o f the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v. Cazes , 875 S.W. 2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994). After thoroughly rev

iewing the record, the briefs, and the law gov erning the issue, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support th e jury’s verdict in this cas

e. 3

The judgment of the trial court i s affirmed in all respects.________________________________ CORNELIA A. CLARK SPECIAL JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________ JOHN H. PEAY JUDGE

___________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS JUDGE

4