# FILED July 9, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRU ARY SESSION, 1997

ST ATE OF TE NN ES SE E, ) C. C.A. NO. 03C01-9604-CC-00151 ) Appell ee, ) COCKE C OUNTY ) ) V. ) HO N. B EN W . HO OP ER , II, ) JU DGE CLI NTON DA RRELL T URNER, ) ) (DUI ; DRI VING WHIL E Ap pella nt. ) LI CENSE SUS PENDED)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : EDWARD CANTRELL MILLER JOHN KNOX WALKUP Dist ri ct Publ ic Def ender Attor ney General & Reporter SU SAN NA L AW S TH OM AS EL IZABE TH T. RY AN Assist ant Publ ic Def ender Assist ant Attor ney General 102 Mims Avenue 450 James Robertson Par kway Newport, TN 37821-3614 Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 AL FRED C. SCHMUTZER, JR. Dist ri ct Attor ney General JA MES BRUCE DUNN Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General 339A East Main Street Newport, TN 37821

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defendant , Cli nton Darrell Tur ner , appeal s as of ri ght hi s convi cti on and sen te nce fo r DUI
. Fol l owi ng aj ury t ri al , t he De fendantwas convi cted of dri vi ng a motor v ehicl e whil e under t he inf luence of an intoxi cant and dr iv ing on a re vok ed licen se in the Cocke County Ci rcui t Court . The t ri al court sent enced the Defendantto el even (11) months and twenty-ni ne (29) days on t he charge of dri vi ng whil e underthe influ ence and si x months f or t he charge ofdri vi ng on a revoked license. T he se ntenc es we re ord ered t o be serv ed concurrentl y. The tri al courtsuspended t he enti re sent ence for the conv ict ion of d riv ing on a rev oked li cense. On the DUI, the Defendant was ordered to serve se ven day s in jai l wi th t he balance to be ser ved on probat ion. In addi ti on to chal lengi ng the suffi ciencyof t he evi dence, Def endantalso argues the t ri al court er red by all owing an offic er to tes tify as to fie ld sob riety test s when the offi cer was not tra ined to admini ster

those test s. The lastissue the Def endant raises is t hat t he tri al courterred by sent enc ing h im to ser ve seven days ratherthan t he two ( 2) day min imu m prov ided by law . W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

SUFFI CIE NCY OF THE EVI DENCE

Defendantfi rstchall enges the s uff ici ency ofthe ev idence. W he n a n accused chall enges the s uff ici en c y of th e co nvic ting evid en ce , the sta nd ard is whe ther, aft er rev iewi ng the ev idence i n the l ightmost favorabl e to t he prosecut ion, any ra ti onal t ri er offactcould h ave f ound the ess enti al el ements of the crim e be yon d a re aso nab le do ubt. Jackson v. Virgi ni a , 4 43 U. S. 307, 319-3-

(1979 ). On ap pea l, the St ate i s enti tl ed to t he strongest l egit imate v iew ofthe evidence and all infere nce s the refrom
. State v. Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 19 78 ). A ju ry ve rdic t ap pro ved by th e tria l judg e a ccr ed its th e S tate ’s wit nesses and reso lves a ll conflicts in favo r of the State
. Stat e v. Grace , 493 S.W .2d 47 4, 476 (Ten n. 197 3).

Beca use a verdi ct ofguil t r emoves the presumption o f i nnocence and repl aces i t wi th a presumpti on of guilt, the accu sed h as the b urden in this court ofillustr atin g w hy th e e vide nc e is insu fficie nt t o supportthe v erdi ct retur ned by the trier of fac t. Sta te v. T ug gle , 639 S.W .2d 913 , 914 (Te nn. 1 982 ); Grace , 493 S .W.2d at 476. Any quest ions c oncerni ng the credibi li ty o f t he wit nesses, the weightan d va lue to b e g iven the evid en ce , as we ll as all fact ual issue s rai sed by the evi dence, are resol ved by t he tr ierof f act, notthis co urt. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W .2d 620, 623 (Te nn. C rim. A pp.), perm . to appeal denied , id . (Ten n. 198 7). Norma y this court rew eigh or re evalua te the evi d enc e. Cabbage , 571 S. W .2d at 835.

Offi cerBe nn ie S he lton of th e C oc ke Co un ty S he riff’s Department wasthe Sta te’s onlywit ness at tri al. The Defendant presented no p roof . Off icer Shelt on test if ied thaton July

15, 1994 at1:30 a.m ., he was on pat rol and observ ed the De fen da nt’s car trave li ng do wn Ashevi ll e Highway. The Defendant’ s car hea dligh ts were noton, and, whil e the car was no t a convert ibl e, i t had no top. After Officer Shelton pull ed behind the vehicl e with hi s blu e lig hts on, the Defendantpulled over to the s ide o f the ro ad. He approached t he dri ver’ s side and found the Defendantto hav e bloodsho t ey es. When he asked Defendant for his li cense, Offi cer Shel ton not iced t hat his spe ec h w as som ew ha t slur red in-4-

response. Defendantfai led t o produce hi s li cense. Shelt on asked Defendant to get outof hi s car, and the Def endant t hen tol d him he di d not hav e a li cense. W hen th e Def enda ntexi te d hi s ca r, Sh e lton o bse rved that h e wa s wa lking o ffbalan ce. A computer check indi cated t hat Defend ant’ s li cense had been revo ked
.
Offi cerShelt on adminis ter ed thr ee separat e fi eld sobr iety te sts, incl uding the hori zontal gaze nystagmus, recit ation ofABC’s, and the fi nger to nose test s. W hile the Def endant di d fol low hi s directi ons, he wasun ab le to compl etel y fo ll ow the pen duri ng the hor izont al gaze nyst agmus test wit hout movi ng hi s he ad. During his r ec itatio n of t he ABC’s, he l eftout some l ett ers and hi s speech was no tab lyslur red. W hen the D efen dan t tried to p erform the fing er to n ose test, he was onlyable t o touch hi s top l ip. Defen dant’s p erfo rm an ce on the se tes ts, in addit ion to th e sm ell o f alc ohol aboutthe Def endant, his s lur red speech, bloodshoteyes, and dri vi ng wit h no headli ghts, indi cated to Offi cer Shel ton t hat the Defendantwas impai red by an i ntoxi cant. Furt hermore, the Off icer observ ed an em pty liquor bottle in the D efend ant’s car, and the Def endant st ated t hat he had justleft a l ocal bar , The Brown House, where he drank some al coho lic beverages. Based upon all these observati ons, Off icer Shelt on deter mined that Defendantwa s op era ting a m oto r veh icle while under t he infl uence of intox ican ts and ar r es t ed hi m. De fend ant s ubs equ ently re fuse d to s ubm it to a breat h alcohol test.

Of fi cerShelt on admitt ed on cross -examina ti on thathe was not for m all y tra ined i n the admini strati on of t he hori zontal gaze nyst agmus test or t he fi nger to nose tes t. He had observ ed stat e troo p ers administer the hori zontal gaze-5-

nyst agmus test . He added t hat he was aware of whatwou ld b e “n orm al” in a performance ofthe “re citation of AB C” te st an d the “finge r to no se” te st. Offi cer Shelt on also add ed th at he had ma de m any prior a rrests forDUI in t he previ ous seven years se rvice as a law enforce me nt officer.

Defendantwas c onvi cted ofdri vi ng whil e under t he inf luence of an intoxica nt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 10-401(a ). At t he ti me of the offen se this statu te provi ded that , “ Itis unl awful forany person . . . t o drive . . . an y au tom ob ile

. . . on an y of th e p ub lic ro ad s or hig hw ays of th e st ate of T en ne sse e . . . w hile und erthe i nfl uence of an int oxi cant .
. . ” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55 -1 0- 401
. Th e record in t his ca se demonstrat es thatthe Def endant was d ri vi ng his c ar on a Tennessee hig hw ay w hile un de r the influ en ce of a n in toxic an t. Th is is shown by the De fen da nt’s slurred speech, unsteady gait , bloodshot ey es, sm ell of alco ho l, and dri vi ng wit hout t he use of his hea dlights at 1:30 a.m. o n As heville High way. In addit ion, the Def endant’ s perf ormance on the field so briety tes ts ind ica ted his guil t. Defendantalso ad mitt ed to t he Offi cer t hat he had bee n dri nking. Based upon the st andard ofrevi ew for th is Court, there was more than s uff ici ent evidence fora rat ional tr ieroffactto det ermine tha t De fen da nt w as drivin g w hile underthe influenc e of alcoh ol. This C ourt has lon g h eld t hat ci rcumstant ial evidence alone i s suff ici ent t o establ ish t he elementsneces sa ry t o sustai n a convi cti on fo r DU I. See , e.g. Ho pso n v. S tate , 201 Tenn. 337, 299 S. W .2d 11 (1957 ); Fa rm er v. S tate , 208 Te nn. 7 5, 34 3 S .W .2d 8 95 (1 961 ); Ha rdin v. State , 210 Ten n. 116, 355 S.W .2d 1 05 (1 962 ); State v. G ilbert , 751 S. W .2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. App. 198 8) . While Defenda nt argues thatthe St ate shoul d be r equired to prove its ca se by m ore tha n O fficer Shelton ’s testimo ny, ther e i s-6-

cle arly no such re quirement under Tennessee law
. State v. Vass er , 870 S. W .2d 543, 544 (Tenn. Cri m. App. 1993) . There i s no meritto t his i ssue.

TESTI MONY OF OFF I CER SH ELTO N

Defendantargue s that the trial cou rterre d in a llowing Office r Sh elton to testify regarding hi s opini on thatthe De fend ant w as im paire d. At t ri al, Defendant fai led to ti melyobj ectto Off ic er Sh elton’ s competence as a wi tness regardi ng De fen da nt’s impairment and his subs eq ue nt o pin ion as to De fen da nt’s int oxi cati on. The trial court over ruled Defendant’ s later objecti on on that basis. Failure to m ak e a con tem po ran eo us ob jec tion no rm ally waiv es consi derat ion by this cou rt of the issue on a ppe al. See T.R .A.P . 36(a ); Te agu e v. State , 772 S. W .2d 915 , 926 (Te nn. C rim. A pp. 1 988 ), perm . to appeal denied , id . ( Tenn. 198 9); State v. Ki ll ebrew , 760 S.W
. 2d 2 28, 2 35 (T enn . Crim . App .), perm . to appeal denied , id . ( Tenn. 1988). Defendantdid obj ect dur ing cross- examinat ion, butthen failed to make a motion t o str ike anyof t he test imony ofOffi cer Shel ton. Suc h failure by the De fend ant c ons titutes w aiver o f this evid entia ry issu e. See Sta te v. Pil key , 776 S.W .2 d 9 43, 95 2 (Te nn. 19 89) cert
. denied , 108 L. Ed. 646 (1990 ). In an y eve nt we are unaw are of an y case law that req uires exp ert test imonyto establ ish proofregarding t he fi eld sobr iety te sts whi ch are known as the “f inger

to nose”and “recit ati on ofAB C’s” tests. In f act, in State v. G ilbert , 751S.W .2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) thi s cou rt he ld th at in ge ne ral fie ld

sobrietytests are not “sci entif ic t ests” and that th e ad m issibility of t he resul ts of such test s are notto be governed by rul es pert aini ng to t he ad m issio n o f scie ntific evi dence.

Notwit hstandi ng th e f ai l ur e ofDe fend ant’s cou nse l to obje ct or m ove to stri ke Offi cerShelton’s t estimony, any such error bythe tr ial court was harmless error. W e ag ree th at O fficer S helto n sh ould not h ave bee n pe rm itt ed to t es tify regardi ng th e ho ri zon ta l gaz e nyst agmus(HGN) testupon proper object ion bei ng made. He testi fied t hat he lack ed form al t rai ning i n the HGN test . We feel t he hori zontal gaze nyst agmus testis s cient if ic ev idence, and, acc ordi ngly , t he proof regardi ng the t est shoul d be admitt ed wit h a suff ici ent f oundati on laid by expe rt testimo ny. See State v. Cora Murphy , N o. 01S 01- 960 2- CC-0 003 5, Da vidso n Co unty (T en n. C rim . Ap p., a t Na sh ville, fil ed O cto ber 6, 19 95) perm . to appeal grant ed (Tenn. 1996) . We acknowledge oth er p an els of th is Co urt dis agre e with t his co nc l us i on . Th i s i ss ue i s p r es en t l y pe nd i ng i n t he Ten ne ss ee Su pr eme Co urt. Reg ardless , there wa s m ore than suffi cientevi dence for a rat ional tr ierof factto find th e D efen dan t guilty of dr iv ing a motor vehi cle whi le under the infl uence of al cohol even wit hout t he t es t i monyre ga rd i ng t he HGN test. State v. Ro nn ie Kirk , No. 02C01-9309- CC-00215, Chester County (Tenn. Cri m. App., at Jackson, fi led Oct ober 12, 1994) ( No Rule 11 appl icat ion f il ed)
. An y err or in all owing any ofthattest imony was ha rm le ss b eyo nd a re as on ab le d ou bt. T his issu e is w ithou t me rit.

-7--8- SENTENCE

Defendantargue s that the trial cou rterre d in senten cing him to serve seven days i n pri son, rat her t han the two-day mandato ry min imum sentence. The misdemeanant, unli ke a fel on, i s not ent it led t o t he presumpt ion o f a minimum se nten ce. S tate v. Creasy , 885 S. W .2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 199 4). Under Tenne ssee Code A nnotated se cti on 55-10-40 3, a person co nvi cted ofdri vi ng a m otorvehi cle whi le under the i nfl uence of an int oxi cant must be confi ned fornot l ess than forty- eight(48) hours nor more than el even (11) months and twenty-ni ne (29) days. Thi s stat ute, in effect , mandates a maximum sentence for

DUI, wi th the tr ial court ’s onl y fu ncti on to det ermine whatperi od abo ve the mini mum pe riod of in ca rce ratio n e sta blish ed by s tatu te, if a ny, is to be suspended. State v. Ker ry Combs , No . 03C 01-9 409 -CR -003 14, G reen e C oun ty (Tenn. Cr i m. Ap p., at K nox ville, filed S epte m ber 9 , 199 6), perm . to appeal denied (Ten n. 199 7).

A cha llenge a s to the len gth, rang e or m ann er o f servi ce of a sentence requi res thi s Court to conduct a de novor ev iew wi th a presumption t hat t he deter minati ons made by the t ri al court are correct so long as the reco rd demonstrat es thatthe t ri al court properl y consi der ed rel evant sentenci ng princi ples. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35 -401 (d); State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). I n conduct ing a de novorevi ew thi s Court mustweigh t he evi denc e rec eived at trial an d se nten cing hea ring, th e pre -sen tenc e rep ort, stat utory pri ncipl es for sentenci ng, counse l’ s arguments regardi ng sentenc ing-9-

alter nativ es, the cr iminal conduct an d it s nature, mit igat ing and enha ncing factors, the de fen da nt’s s tat ement, and t he defendant ’s pot enti al f or reh abil it ati on ortreatm ent. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d at169. The record ref lect s thatthe t ri al j udge fai led to f oll ow the s en tenc ing p rinciple s of Ashby and, t heref ore, there is no presumpti on of c orrectness. However, upon rev iew ofthe record we f ind no reve rsible e rror in th e se nten cing of D efen dan t.

W hil e no pr esentence reportwas complet ed, t he Defendantassert s that he had no p rior crim inal re cord and that ther e w ere no enha ncem ent factors ap plica ble to his o ffens e. T he re cord fails to ref lectthatthe tr ial judge found any enhancement or m itiga ting fac tors . Th e re co rd d oe s re fle ct thatthe circumstances of t he off ense were ser ious i n thatthe Def endant was dr iv ing along a stat e highwaywit hout hi s li ghts on at1:30 a.m. I n his s tat ement to t he tri al court , Defendan t admitt ed to hav ing dr iv en numerous ti mes while his l icense was revoked. Such acts were in kno wing v iol ati on of t he law. In cons iderati on ofthe above, we cannot c onclude t hat t he tr ial courterred in orderi ng a sentence which was great er t han the mini mum forty- eight(48) hours mandated by t he stat ute. See St at e v . War ner D. Brannon , C.C.A. 0 3C01-9508-CR-00233, Knox Co unty (Tenn. Cri m. App. atKnoxvi ll e, f il ed Apri l 3, 1 996 ), perm . to appeal denied (Ten n. 199 6).-10- The judgment ofthe t ri al court i s therefor e aff ir med.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge