### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 26, 200 5

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TIMO THY LL OYD

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for P utnam C ounty

No. 03-0338 Leon Burns, Jr., Jud ge

No. M2005- 00184-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 17, 2005

This is a direct a

ppeal f rom a c onviction on a jury verdic t of driving under the in fl u ence of a n int oxic a nt ( DU I ), thi rd of fe ns e , a Cla ss A mis de me a no r. Th e tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d th e De fe nd a nt, Ti mothy L loy d, to e le ve n mo nth s and tw e nty -n ine day s, wi th 120 day s to be se rv e d inthe c ou nty ja il. Th e De fe nd a nt n ow app e a ls, c on ten di ng that th e e vid e nc e su bmi tte d at tria l w a s in su ff ic ie nt t o support his DUI

conviction. We aff

irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court , i n wh ich G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J., a ndJ.C. M C L IN , J ., joined.

H. Marsha ll J udd, Assistant Publ i c De fe n d er, Cookeville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Timothy L loy d.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B e njamin A. B a ll, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam E. Gibson, District A tt o rn e y G e n e ral; and Thoma s Tansil and Anthony Craig head, A ssistant Attorney s Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

F AC TS

The re cord r efle cts that on the ni g ht of J uly 21, 2002, Monterey Police Offic er Richa rd Ly nch clocke d the Def

endant driving f

orty -five miles per hour on a portion of Com merc ial Avenue zoned for a maxi mum of thirty

miles per hour. Offic er Ly nch followed the Def endant’ s vehicle f

or a short pe ri odof tim e , d uring wh ic h ti me he ob se rv e d th e De fe nd a nt c ro ss the do ub le y e llo w line tw o ti me s. Offic er L y nch ac tivated his blue light s, and the De fendant turned onto a re sidential street. The Def endant stopped his vehic le in the middle of his lane of traff ic despite the a vailability of a side shoulder. When Off

icer Ly nch appr oache d the Def endant, he detec ted an odor of alcohol, observe dT h e D e fen d a n t also re fus e d to sign the im p lied c o n se n t f o rm

. 1

-2- that the Def

endant ha d red, w atery

ey es, and w as unst able when he exit ed the vehicle. There wer e beer bottles and ca ns litt ere d about the interior of his vehicle. TheDef

endant informed the off

icer he had consumed two beer s sever al hours earlier. After conducting sever al field sobrie ty tests, the Def endant wa s arr ested for

DUI

.
In S e p t e m b e r

o f 2 0 0 3 , t h e D e f

e n d a n tw a s i n d i c t e d b y a

P u t n a mC o u n t y

g r a n d j u r y

f o r D U I, thi rdoffense. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. §§ 55 -1 0- 40 1, -4 03 . T he De fe nd a nt r e c e ive d a jury tr ia l in Janu ary of 20 04 . A t t ri al, Offi cer

Ly nc h te sti fi e d th a t he a dmi nis te re d s ix se pa rate fi e ld s ob ri e ty tests, and the De fenda nt failed a ll but one. O ffice r Ly nch first administered the alphabe t test, and the Def endant wa s able to cor

rec tly rec ite the alphabe t. Office r Ly nch then r eq uested that the Def endant c ount backwa

rds from thirty -six to twenty -four

. On his first attempt the Def endant

s t o p p e d a t t w e n t y- f

i v e , a n d h e a g a i n m i s s e d h i s m ark b y c o u n t i n g t o t w e n t y- t h r e e o n a s e c o n d tr y. Of fi c e r L y nc h te sti fi e d th a t he de te rm ine d th e De fe nd a nt f a ile d th is t e st.

Of fi c e r L y nc h n e xt ad min ist e re d th e fi ng e r d e xterity te st, wh e re by

the De fe nd ant wa s to touch his fing er tips to his thumbs whil e counting from on e t o four a nd then bac k down to one. Of fi c e r L y nc h s ta te d th a t the De fe nd a nt faile d to tou c h his fi ng e rs in the c or re c t or de r, a ndfaile d to proper ly count, t here by failing the test. As a f ourth test, Offic er L

y nch re quested that the D efe ndant conduct the “ walk and turn” or “ heel to toe” test. The De fendant was re quested to take nine steps in a straig ht line, touching his heel to his toe while counting aloud, and then turn around and return in the same manne r. Howe ver, the Def endant f ailed to touch his hee l to his t oe nine times during h is r o u n d trip a n d w a lk e d b e y o n d th e r e q u e s te d n in e s te p s o n b o th th e o u tb o u n d a n d inbound po rt ion s o f the wa lk. As a fi fth tes t, Of

fi c e r L y nc h a sk e d th e De fe nd a nt t o s ta ndwi th h is a rm s to his sid e a ndhis he a d ti lte d b a c k f or wh a t he be lie ve d to be thi rt y se c on ds . T he De fe nd a nt m a na g e d o nly tw e l v e s e c o n d s , a n d s w a y e d b a c k a n d f o r t h t o th e e xt e n t t h a t O f f i c e r Ly n c h t e r m i n a t e d th e te st beca use he f ear ed the De fenda nt would fall over.

As a fina l field sobriety

test, Offic er L

y nch aske d the Def

endant to stand on one leg and maintain his balance while counting to thirty . Ac co rd i n g to Office r Ly nch’s testimony , the Def endant “ wave [ed] his arms about” and was unable to pe rform the test. Offic er L y nch conc luded that the Def

endant wa s impaired base d on his init ial observations an d t h e De fendant’s poor p e r f o r m a n c e o n f

i v e o f t h e s i x f

i e l d s o b r i e t y

t e s t s

. H e p l a c e d t h e D e f e n d a n tu n d e r

arr e s tf o r D U I. Th e De fe nd a nt w a s tr a ns po rt e d to the po lic e statio n f or bo oking , w he re he wa s adv ise d of h is rig hts under the implied consent law, as well as the ramifications of ref using to submit to a blood alcohol te st. Th e De fe nd a nt n on e the le ss r e fu se d to su bmi t to a blo odte st. 1

Of fi c e r L y nc h f urthe r t e sti fi e d th a t th e De fe nd a nt’ s d e me a no r thr ou g ho ut the e nti re pr oc e ss
was one of ag itatio n

. An inventory of the De fendant’s vehicle r esulted in the discovery of

“ nu me ro us ” be e r c a ns a ndbo ttl e s; o ne be e r b ott le wa s three qu art e rs e mpty a ndits c on te nts sti ll cold, which indicated to the offic er that it was being consumed at the time of the stop.-3-

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Of fi c e r L y nc h a dmi tte d th a t th e De fe nd a nt pa sse d on e of the six f ie ld sobriety tests, and that the De fenda nt had a passeng er with him in the vehic le at the time of the stop. Offic er L y nch further stated that he believe d the bre athaly zer machine was broken at the time of the De fe nd a nt’ s a

rr e st, a ndthu s th e De fe nd a nt w a s o ff e re d o nly a blo odte st.

The De fenda nt testified t hat he suffe red from anxiety , and was nervous about being stopped for the se cond time i n one night. The De fendant stated that he ha d been stoppe d by a State Troope r only hours ea rlier a nd g iven a spe eding ticket, but was rele ased to continue driving. H e further stated that he informe d Offic er L y nch that he had two beer s four to five hours prior to being stopped, but the open bottle belong ed to his passeng er.

Th e De fe nd a nt a lso c ha lle ng e d O ff ic e r L y nc h’ s c on c lus ionpe rt a ini ng to h is l a c k o f s uc c e ss on the field sobrie ty

tests. The De fendant c laimed that he not only passed the se cond test (c ounting backw ards) , but sur

passed the require ments by counting further than he was asked. The Def endant

a lso t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e b e l i e v e d h e a l s o p a s s e d b o t h t h e f i n g e r t o t h u m b t e s t a n d t h e h e e l to t oe te st. As to the la st t wo te sts , the De fe nd a nt a dmi tte d he pe rf orme d the he a d b a c k f

or thi rt y se c on ds te st incorre ctly , and could not re member his performanc e on the one leg stand test.

Th e De fe nd a nt f

urthe r t e sti fi e d th a t th e re a so n h e refuse d to take a blo odte st w a s b e c aus e he was on presc ription me dication, and he believed a blood te st w ould “ automatically ” lea d to a DUI conviction. The Defe ndant added that he volunteer ed to take a breathaly zer test, but was not g iven the oppo r tu n it y

to d o s o

. O n c r o s s

- e xa mi n a ti o n , th e D e f e n d a n t a d mi tt e d h e h a d n o phy sical problems that would have hindere d his performance on the field sobrie ty tests. He also stated that he be lie ve d h e wa s n ot i mpair e d b y his a lc oh ol c on su mpt ionthe nig ht o f his arres t, bu t that hi s presc ription medication “c ould have” aff ecte d the way

he ac ted.

At the conc lusion of the trial, the jury fou n d the Def

endant g uiltyof DUI . The De fendant stipulated to two prior DUI convictions, and the trial court iss ued a judg ment ag ainst the Def endant fo r D UI , th ir d o ff

e ns e

. Th e De fe nd a nt wa s sen te nc e d to e le ve n mo nth s a ndtw e nty -n ine da y s w ith the re quired minimum of 120 day s to be served in the county jail. I n addition to the jail sentence , the Def endant wa s fined $1,110, his driver ’s l i cense was suspende d for thre e y ear s, and he w as require d to complete a c ourt order ed alc ohol assessment prog ram.

Th e De fe nd a nt t ime ly

fi le d a com bi ned motio n f or a ne w t ri a l or jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l, alleg ing insuff

icient evidenc e. An evidentiary hearing w as sche duled for Ma rch of 2004; however , the De fe nd a nt, wh o h a d ma de bo nd , f a ile d to app e ar a t thi s he ari ng a nd a c apia s wa s iss ue d fo r h is

arr est. I n Dec ember of 2004, the trial court e ntere d an orde r denying the Def endant’ s motion for a new tria l. The De fenda nt timelyfiled a notice of appe al.T h e D e fen d a n t d o e s n o t c h a llen g e the d e te rm ina tio n tha t sho u ld the D U I c o n v ic tio n in this c a se sta n d , i t wo u ld 2
be h i s t h i r d.

“I ss ues whi ch are no t supp o rt ed b y argum ent , ci t at i o n t o aut ho ri t i es, o r ap p rop ri at e ref erences t o t he reco rd 3

w ill b e tre a te d a s w a ive d in this c o u rt.”

“T h e b rie f o f t h e a p p e llan t sha ll c o n ta in . .

. [a ]n a rg u m e n t, w h ic h m a y b e p re c e d e d b y a su m m a ry o f ar g u m e n t, 4

set t i ng fo rt h t he co nt ent i o ns o f t he ap p el l ant w i t h respe ct to t he i ss ues present ed , and t he reasons t herefo r, i ncl ud i ng t he reasons why t he co nt ent i o ns requir e ap p el l at e rel i ef , wi t h ci t at i o ns t o t he aut ho ri t i es and ap p rop ri at e ref erences t o t he

r ecor d (w hi ch may be quot ed ve r bat i m) r el i ed on. ”
-4- AN AL YSI S The Defendant is now before this Court with a claim that the e vidence prese nted at trial wa s insufficient to convic t him, bey ond a re asonable doubt, of d ri v i n g under the influence of an intox icant. We disag ree

.

2
We beg in by

noting that the D efe ndant h as fa iled to adequately support his claim with an

arg ume nt a s r e qu ir e d b y

Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e du re . A lth ou g h th e De fe nd a nt c ite s to the re cord in a

narr ative of his ca se’s procedur al history , and also re cites standar d case law pertaining to appellate r eview of

the suffi ci en cyof evide nce, he fails to draw any nexus between the le g al standards to whic h he points and the issue raised on appeal

. I n d ee d , the Def endant’ s entire

“ arg ume nt” a s st a te d in his app e llate brie f c on sis ts o f the fo llo wi ng : “D e fe nd a nt al le g e s tha t the fa c ts
are insufficient a s a matter of law to sustain his conviction.”

Ou r C ou rt

re qu ir e s th a t, on app e a l, a de fe nd a nt p re se nt an a

rg ume nt, make app ro pria te ref ere nces to the r ecor d, and cite r eleva nt leg al authority in support of hi s o r h er arg ument. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 1 0 (b ). Addi tionally , all Tenne ssee a ppellate leve l courts re quire the 3 appellant’ s brief to c ontain an ar g ument, citations to authorities, and appropriate re fer ence s to the

re c or d. Se e Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 2 7( a)(7 ). F a ilu re to c omp ly wi th the se ba sic ru le s w ill or din ari ly 4 constitute a wa iver of the issue. See Te nn. Ct. Crim . App. R. 10(b); State v. Thomps on, 36 S.W .3d 102, 108 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000)

.
I n the pre sent ca se, the De fendant makes no leg al ar g ument supported by citati ons to the

rec ord, save a one sentenc e recitation of the issue pr esente d for r eview. U nder the se circ umstances we are not obligated t o revie w t his issue as it is presented. See State v. Keller , 813 S.W .2d 146, 150 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ) ( “ B a ld a ss ert io ns un a c c omp a nie d b y le g a l a rg ume nt o r c itatio ns to
a uth oriti e s a

re wa ive d” ). No ne the le ss, we e le c t to a dd re ss the De fe nd a nt’ s c la im.

Tenne ssee Rule of A ppellate Procedure 13(e) presc ribes that “[f]indings of g uilt in criminal actions whe ther by

the trial court or jury shall be set aside if the evide nce is insuffic ient to support the finding s by

the trier of

fac t of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.” A convic ted criminal defenda nt who cha lleng es t he sufficiency of the e vidence on appea l bear s the burden of demonstrating why

the evidenc e is insufficient to support the ve rdict, bec au s e a verdict of g uilt destroy s the presumption of innoce nce and imposes a presumption of g uilt. See State v. Evans, 108 S.W .3d 231, 237 (Tenn.-5-

2003); State v. Carruthe rs, 35 S.W .3d 516, 557-58 (Te nn. 2000); State v. Tug g le, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . This Court must reje ct a c onv i ct ed crimi nal def endant’ s challeng e to the sufficie ncyof the e vidence if, afte r considering the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, we determine that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a reasonable doubt. See J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn. 1999).

On app e a l, the Sta te is e nti tle d to the str on g e st l e g iti ma te vie w o f the evi den ce an d a ll

rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces w hich may be dra wn t here from. See C arr uthers, 35 S .W.3d at 558; Hall, 8 S.W .3d at 599. A g uiltyverdic t by the t rier of fac t acc redits t he testimony of the State’s wi tne sse s a ndre so lve s a ll c on fl ic ts i n th e e vid e nc e in f a vo r o f the pr os e c uti on ’s the ory

. Se e State v. Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . Questions ab o u t the cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weig ht and value of t he evidence, as well as all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of fac t, and this Court will not re- weig h or re- evaluate the evidenc e. See Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d at 2 3 6 ; Bl and, 958 S.W.2d at 659. Nor will this C ourt substitut e its own infer ence s drawn f rom circ umstantial evidence fo r t hose dra wn by the trier of

fac t. See Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 236-37; Carruthe rs, 35 S.W.3d at 557.

The De fenda nt was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxi cant in violation of Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 5 5- 10 -4 01 . T his statut e mak es it u nla wf ul f or “ a ny pe rs on to drive or to be in phy sical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the publi c r o a d s a n d h ig h w a y s o f th e s tate

. . . w h il e : ( 1 ) U n d e r th e in f lu e n c e o f a n y in to xic a n t .

. . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 10-401(a )(1)

.
The De fenda nt asserts that the State pr esente d insufficient e vidence to sustain his conviction for DU I

. Be cause the Def endant f ailed to articulate any

specific arg ument in his appellate brie f as to e xactl yho w the Sta te ’s e vid e nc e fe ll s ho rt of that ne e de d to su pp ort a

c on vic tio n f

or DU I , th is Cou rt wi ll i nf e r the De fe nd a nt r a ise s th e sa me arg ume nts on app e a l th a t he arg ue d in the tr ia l c ou rt

. At trial, th e D e f

e n d a n t t e s ti f

ie d th a t h e w a s n o t i mp a ir e d , a n d s u r mi s e d th a t th is c laim w as
corr oborate d by

the State Troope r who ha d earlier in the evening issued him a speeding ticket, but did not question his abili ty to c ontinue driving

. Additionally , the Def endant c halleng ed the a

rre sting office r’s c onclusions as to his failure of sever al of the field sobriety tests, and asserted that his poor pe rf orma nc e ma y

ha ve be e n d ue to h is anxie ty dis abil ity , g e ne ra l ne rv ou sn e ss, a ndpo ssi bly his presc ription medication.

Th e re cord reve als that O ff ic e r L y nc h w itn e sse d th e De fe nd a nt s pe e din g a ndmov e a c ro ss
a do ub le y e llo w l ine tw o ti me s b e fo re he pu lle d h im o ve r. Ad dit ion a lly , w he n th e De fe nd a nt f ina lly did stop, he did so in the middl e of the road. O ffice r Ly nch also testified that as he fir st approac hed the Def endant he noticed an odor of an alcohol about him. He observe d that he had red and watery ey es and diff

iculty exit ing the vehicle. O ffice r Ly nch further testified that the Def endant state d that he had two beer s sever al hours prior to the i ncident, and sever al beer bot tles and cans were observe d in the De fe nd a nt’ s c ar. Ma ny mor e a lc oh oli c be ve ra g e c on ta ine rs we re dis c ov e re d w he n th e ve hic le was inventorie d, including one bottle which containe d beer that was still cold.-6-

Th e e vid e nc e be fo re thi s Co urt a lso ind ic a te s th e De fe nd a nt w a s g ive n s ix se para te fi e ld sobriety tests and failed f

ive of them. The administering office r, Off icer Ly nch, testified that he had over f ifteen y ear s experience as a police office r and had also completed specializ ed tra ining c ourses in DUI offe nses and the a dminist ration of f ield sobriety

tests. Office r Ly nch dete rmined the De fe nd a nt f

a ile d f ive fi e ld so brie ty te sts , the la st tw o of wh ic h ha d to b e te rm inate d e arl y be c aus e the Def endant wa s unable to per form them and looke d as if he w ould fall down.

The De fenda nt testified that he believed he passed the first four sobriety tests, but admitted to failing the fifth and ha d no memory of his perf

ormanc e of the s ix th. The De fendant points t o no oth e r c ha lle ng e s to Of

fi c e r L y nc h’ s te sti mon y

oth e r tha n h is o wn state me nts

.
We n ote that th is C ou rt ha s o ft e n f

ou ndthat an a

rr e sti ng of

fi c e r’ s te sti mon y

a lon e is sufficie nt to support a defe ndant’s convic tion for driving under the influenc e of an intox icant. See,

e .g . St ate v. Va sse r, 87 0 S. W.2 d 54 3, 54 4 (T e nn

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). F urthe rm or e , a ll the arg ume nts that can be inferr ed fr om the Def endant’ s appellate brief, suc h as the De fendant’s perf ormanc e on the field sobrie ty

tests, go to the w eig ht and cr edibilityof the e vidence , and this Court will not reweig h or re -eva luate the e vidence . See Eva ns, 108 S.W .3d at 236.

The De fenda nt has failed to c arry his burden of de monstrating that no rational t i er of fac t
c ou ld f indthe e sse nti a l e le me nts of drivi ng un de r the inf

lue nc e of a n int oxic a nt be y on d a re a so na ble doubt based on the evidence presented at trial. Thus, afte r considering all of the e vidence prese nted in the light mos t favor able to the S tate, we conclude that the evidence was sufficie nt to support the De fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n f

or DU I . T his iss ue ha s n o me ri t.

CO NC LU SION B a se d o n th e re a so nin g a nda uth oriti e s c ite d a bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is aff irmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE