### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00002-CR
Wayne Edw ard Weiric h, Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. CR99-208, HO NORABLE CHARL ES R. RAMSAY, JUDG E PRESIDING
Wayne E dw ar d W eir ich ap pe als his co nvictio n for felony dr iving whi le in to xicated. Te x. Pen . Code A

nn . § 49.09 (b) (W

est Sup p. 2002 ) (DW

I). A j ury f

ound appella

nt guil ty, m ade an affir mat ive find ing t ha t he us ed a d ea dly wea po n, a nd se nt ence d him to fif t een yea rs’ impriso nment and a $75 00 fine. We will affi rm t he co nvictio n. Factual and Procedur al Back

ground Because app ellant d oe s no t challenge t he factual or legal suf fi ci ency of the evi dence to supp ort his co nvictio n, w e will summarize t he r elevant fact s and di sc us s o t he rfa ct s a s n ec es sa ry.

At app ro ximately five

o’clock in t he af t er no o n o f Ju ne 19 , 19 99 , Of fic er P et e A rr o yo recei ved a radi o dispatch conce

rni ng a b lue Chev y C aval ie r possib ly bei ng dri ven by a drunk dri

ver2

on FM 30 6 in Co mal C o un t y. S ho r t ly aft er he ar ing t he bu ll et in, Ar r o yo sa w a blu e C av alie r . His radarsho wed t he vehicle’s spe ed a s ap pr oximat ely eighty miles per hou r. Bec aus e t he veh ic le veered i n to hi s l ane, Arroy

o had to move hi s c ar on t o t he unimpr ove d sho ulder t o a void a hea d- on c ollision. Ar r o yo then

turne d aroun

d an d be gan a purs ui t. Arroyo was able to get close eno ugh t o o bser ve t he driv er bef ore t he car turned i

nto a residen

tial subdi vi si on. As A

rroyo foll owed, he noticed a l

arge num ber of ch il dren play in g in the area, sl owed hi s car, and ab andoned the ch ase. Mi chael Alt meye r , a r es ide nt o f t he su bd ivisio n, t es t ified t ha t he wa s inhis swimmi ng pool with h is chi ldren when he h eard tires screech

in g, sa w a ca r s l am i n to a tree, and saw a m

an run f rom t he ca r . At t ha t mo men t , a p at r o l ca rar r ive d. Alt meye rt o ld t he off ic er the direction in

whi ch t he man had r un and then

j oin ed th e ch ase on h i s m otorcyc l e. He found the m an tryi ng to hide un

der a n ei gh b or’ s c ar . H e h

el d th e m an dow n un ti l th e p oli ce

ar ri v ed an d a rre ste d a pp el l an t. Appe llantwas char ged wit h dr iving while into xicat ed, re ckles s dr iving, eva ding ar re st, and resi stin

g arrest. He pleaded nolo conten dere to all off enses except the dri

vi ng wh il e i ntoxica ted charge an d was convi

cted of the other three charges on January 5, 2000. After

f i rs t en teri ng i nto a ple a ar ra ngement on t he DWI char ge w ith t he Co mal Cou nt y Distr ict At t or ney’s Office, app ellant chose to wi

thd raw hi s p l ea i n f av or of a j ury tri al . The j ury

con vi cte d h i m of the ch arg ed of f ense of dr iving wh ile int o xic at ed , en ha nc ed t o felo ny st at us , mad e a n a ffir mat ive find ing o f us e o f a d ea dly weapon, and sen

tenced hi m to fi fteen y ears i n pri son wi

th a $7500 fi

ne. In s i x poi nts of error, app ellant c ont ends t he t rial co ur t er re d whe n it: per mitt ed t he sta te t o int ro duc e evide nce o f prio r felo ny convict ions durin g the guil t-inn ocence ph as e o f t he t r ial; allowed th e state t o imp r o pe r ly imp ea ch t he de fe nd an t an d e xp o se d h im t o do ub le je o pa r dy; allowed1 In h isfourth poin t o f er ro r, app ellant c ont ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in allowing t he i ntr oduc ti on i nto e vi de nc e of a v i de otap e of

appella nt’s responses

to police questioni

ng. The tape was adm itted in to evi dence wi thout obje ction. The tape wasnot t ranscri bed, nor was i

t t ransm itted to this Court as an

or iginal exhibit. Ap pellant has w aived e rr or and the po in t is overruled. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (a). 3 t he intr od uct ion o f te st imony th at t he ho rizo nt al gaz e nyst agmus field sobr iety t est qua nt ifi ed t he defendant’s bl

ood al cohol

l ev el and prev en ted the def en se f rom f ull y cro s s-examin

ing the St ate ’s witness; al

l owe d the i

ntr oduc ti on of d efenda nt ’s r esp ons es t o p olice q ues t ioning d ur inga custodial inter ro gat ion; permi

tt ed poli ce off ic ers to t estif

y a bout a moto r vehi

cl e as a hypo t he t ica lly de ad ly weapon; an

d gave to the jury

an i mproper i nstruction on an

aff irm ative deadl y weapon fi

ndi ng. As a preli mi nary ma tt er, we note tha

t appel l an t often ha s f ail ed to pres erve error. W e hav e, however, addressed the issues on the m erits wh en possi ble. 1 Discussion Felony c onvictions In hi s f irst poin t o f error, appell

ant contends that the trial

court erred when

it permi tt ed t he Sta te t o int ro duc e evide nce o f prio r felo ny co nvic t io ns d ur ing t he gu ilt
- inno ce nc e p ha se o f t r ial. Appe llantacknowledges that the S t at e must plead and p ro ve t he exist ence of t wo pr ior DWI co nvictio ns to el evate the off ense to fel

ony DWI. Tex. Pen. Code An n. § 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2002) . Thi s sh owi

ng i s j uri sdi cti onal . See Tame

z v. State , 11 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex. Crim . App. 200 0). Appel

la nt argues, however, that when a de fen dant stipul

ates to the neces sar

y t wo pr io r convicti ons, such

pr o o f is not ne ces sary

; i nde ed, h e argu es, a l l owi ng s uch evi den ce is error. Tamez ,4

11 S.W.3d at 202 -2 03. In Tamez , the c ourt reasoned that a stipul ation sh ould suf fi ce when it carri es t he sa me e vid en t iar y valu e a s o t he rpr o o f o f pr ev io us co nvic t io ns a nd su bst an t ia lly lessens t he prejudi ce f rom th at proof. Id . at 202. Ho wever, i n thi s case, appel

la nt di d n ot st ipulat e t o a ny previous co nvictio ns. Ac co rd ingly, the St at e had t o p lead a nd pr ove t hos e co nvictio ns in it s c as e in chi ef . Cf. Tamez , 11 S.W.3d at 202-203.

Appe llantco mpla i ns of the St ate ’s jury argument because it d iscussed appellant’s crim in al histo ry. T he record shows that appell ant fai le d to obje ct at any poi

nt. The fai

lure to object wai ve s error on ap peal . Cockr

ell v. State , 93 3 S . W. 2d 73 , 89 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 6); Ganesan v. State , 45 S.W.3d 197, 206 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. r ef’ d). In any even t, we have exam

in ed t he argu men t an d i t is no t so infla m

matory and prejudicial

as to den

y appe l l an t a f ai r tri al . See Hernandez

v. State , 819 S. W.2d 806 , 82 0 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 91) ; Poole v . State , 974 S.W.2d 892, 904 (Tex. App.—Austi

n 1998, pet. ref’d). We overrul e poin t o f error one. Misde meanor Conv

ictions In point two, appellant contends that the trial court erred in

adm ittin g both previous and contemporaneous m

is dem eanor convi

ctions f or reckless dri

vi ng, evadi ng arrest an d resist ing ar re st. He contends these conv ictions were used f

or im proper im pea ch me nt and that their use su bje ct ed him t o do ub le je o pa r dy.

Appe llantdid not raise the is sue of j eopardy at t rial o r file a plea ra ising jeop ar dy and thus did no t pr ese rve t he issue for review. Tex. R. App . P . 33 .1( a); see McC lay v. State , 946 S.W.2d 170, 174 (Tex. App.—Am aril lo 1997, pet. ref’d). On the m erits, weunderst and appellant’s je opardy5

ar gument to be

tha t the State i n e ss en cetrea ted the se con tem por aneous mi sd em

eanor off enses as le sser-i ncl uded offense s o f the dr iving

whi l e i ntoxi cated of f en se. Ha vi ng al rea dy be en con vi cte d of t he le sser off enses , he had a

lready been im pli ci tly acqui tt ed of the greater DWI off ense. Appellant’s theory res ts on the con cl us i on that because Of

fi cer Lehm an, one of the arresti

ng off ic ers at the scene , testifi ed that appell

ant’s reckl

ess dri vi ng an d evadi ng poli ce o ffice r s w er e fa ct o r s inhi s c onc l us i on that appella

nt was i ntoxica ted, those offen

ses were el

em ents of the dri

vi ng wh il e i ntoxica ted off ense. The double j eopar dy cl

ause pro tect s against threeab us es : (1 ) a s ec ond

pros ecution f ort he sa me offense aft er an ac quit t al; (2 ) a sec ond pr os ecu t ion fo r t he sa me offense aft er co nvictio n; an d ( 3) mult iple pun

i sh men ts f or the s am

e of f en se. Ex Parte Herron , 7 90 S .W. 2d 6 23, 624 (T ex. Cr im. Ap p. 1990 ). Je o pa r dy d o es no t ap ply if se pa r at e a nd dis t inc t o ffen se s o cc ur du r ing t he sa me tr an sa ction. Phillips v. State, 787S.W .2d 391 , 39 4 (T ex . Cr

i m . A pp. 199 0). A

ppe l l an t wa s n ot expo sedt o do ub le je opardy i n hi s trial for driv in g whi le in to xicated. Lehm

an’s testim ony a bout appellant’s behavio r d ur ingt his t r an sa ct io n simp ly enu mer at ed va r io us fac t o r s t ha t fo rmed t he ba sis f ora co nclusio n abo ut app ellant’ s po ssible into xicat ion. That testimony did n ot have any

le gal eff ect o n t he ele men t s o f t he va r io us o ffe ns es . Do ub le je o pa r dy d o es no t ap pl y.

Appe llantco mplains tha t t he pr ior misdemeano r c onvict ions fo r r eck less dr iving and ev adi ng a rrest that were

adm i tted constituted

i m perm i ssi bl e ch aracter ev i den ce. SeeTex. R. Evid. 404(a ); see ge nerally 1 Stephen

Goode et al ., Texas Practice: Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal

§§ 404 .1-.7 (2d

ed. 19 93 &

Supp. 2 001). Th es e of

f ense s w ere

not u se d to s how conf ormi ty w i th ch aracter, howe

ver. Appe llant t est ifi

ed t hat he wa s no t t he dr iver o f the veh ic le at t he tim e i n question buthad al

l owed s ome one e l se to dri ve i t. He c laimed the dr iver had long blond2 The H GN test i s a f i el d s ob riety tes t base d on

the ef f ec t of al coh ol con su m pti on on th e a b i l i ty of the e yes to track s

moothl y an obj ect m ovi ng a crossthe v

i sua l f i eld. See generally Emerson v
. State , 880 S.W .2d 759 , 764-7 69 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1994 ). 6 ha ir, a mu st ac he , an d w as sle nd er , un like ap pe llant , wh o ha d d ar k h air , no mus t ac he an d w as fair ly heavy se t . Fir st , ap pe llant wa s no t fr ee t o t es t ify wit h im punity; h e w as

su b j ect to i m pe ach men t. Lopez v. State , 9 90 S .W. 2d 7 70, 776 -7 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus t in 1 9 99, no pet .). Appell ant’s past m i sdem ea nor convi ctions were use d to establ

is h that appella

nt had use d t he “ othe

r dr i ve r” exp l an ati on be f ore an d ha d a pa ttern of fl eein g from the poli ce. These convictions were used to hel p establi sh i den tity . SeeTex . R. Evi d. 404( a)(3), (b).

Furth er, ap pe llant st at ed , “T his is the f i rs t ti me i t’s ev er h appen ed to m e. ” T h e S tate was allowe d t o c or re ct t he false impre ssio n t hat app ellant ha d no t had p re viou s pr oblems w ith t he la w. See Lopez , 990 S. W.2 d at 777 . A w itnes s who cr eat es a false impres sion o f law-a biding be ha vi oropens the door o n otherwis e i rrelev ant past crim

in al history . See Del

k v. State , 855 S.W.2d 700, 704 (T ex. Crim. App. 199 3); Lopez , 990 S.W.2d at 777. We conclude tha t the m i sdem ea nor con v i cti on s were n

ot us ed to sh ow a pp el l an t wa s a “b ad pers on ” w

h o h ad acted i n con f orm i ty wi th his ch ara cter, b ut to s how

a p atte rn h el pi n g to c orro b ora

te i den ti ty an d to c orre ct a

f alse i m pre ss i on of l aw-a bi di ng b ehavi or. We ov

errul e app el l an t’s s econ d poi nt of error. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test Evidence

In h i s th ird p oint, appel

la nt compl ai ns that the trial

court erroneously

permi tt ed t est imony that t he HGN test 2 qua nt ifi ed his blo od alco hol co nt ent and e rr one ou sly preve nt ed t he7

defense f rom properl y cross -e x am

i n i n g th e p rop on en

t of th e H GN testi mon y . A pp el l an t f ai l ed to obje ct to the testi

mony and thus f ail ed to pres erve error. Tex. R . App. P. 33.1 (a). Even if we address the merits, however, t he point fai ls. A witne ss qual

if ie d as a n expe rt on t he ad mini st ra t ion and t echniqu e o f the HGN test ma y t es t ify co ncer ning an accus ed’s perf ormance on the HGN test, but may not cor relate that performa nceto a precise b l ood al cohol conten t. Emerso n v. State , 880 S. W. 2d 75 9, 76 9 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1994) . Lehm

an, who adm

in is tered t he t est , d id no t t est ify t hat app ellant’ s pe rfo rmance on t he test mea nt th at a ppe l l an t ha d a bl ood al coh ol con centr ati on of a spe cif i c a mount, su ch as .12. He testifi ed that, in h

is experience, any ind iv

idua l wh o had taken the test and shown al l s ix cl ues indicat ingin

to xication as di

d appella nt had had an al

co hol co nc en t r at io n o f o ve r. 10 . E rr o rin admit t ing t he t est imony, if any, wa s har mless. T her e wa s o t her evidenc e sho wing into xicat ion and app ellant does not chall

enge the suf

fi ci en cy of t hat evidenc e t o s upp or t his co nvictio n for dr iving whi le in to xicated. Appe llantal so contends that he was n ot allowed to ful

ly cross-exam

in e L ehman. Lehm an t est ifi ed t hat , a cco rd ingt o s t anda rd pr oc edu re , he gave three preli mi nary tests t o rule out t he po ss ibilit y o f p roblems ot her than alcohol af fectin g the t est. Appellan

t “passed” tho se test s. Appel la nt then attempted

to ask Leh

ma n whether he h

ad no t ice d t ha t ap pe llant ha d a br uis e o n his face and wh ether that mi ght not have b een an

in dic ation of a h

ead i nj ury. After Leh

ma n responded that h e h ad

n ot n oti ce d a

n y b ru i si n g, t h e c our t li m i ted appe l l an t’s con ti n ue d a ttem pts to el i ci t a med ica l o pi nio n a bo ut wh et he rap pe llan t ha d a he ad inju ry.8 A crim in al appel lan t has the right t o co nf

ront witnesses agains t him thro ugh crossex am i na tion . Lagrone

v. State , 942 S.W.2d 602, 613 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1997). However, the trial courtr et ain s br o ad dis cr et io n t o impo se r ea so na ble l i m i ts on cr oss-exa m i na tion . See Hurd

v. State , 725 S. W. 2d 24 9, 25 2 ( T ex . Cr im Ap p. 19 87 ) . T he co ur t did not li mi t Lehman’s cros s- exam

i na ti on as it p er t ained t o w het her Lehman p ro per ly admini st er ed t he t est ; it w as limi

t ed o nly when app ellant tried t o e licit t est imony beyond Le hma n’s sc o pe o f ex pe r t ise . T he co ur t wa s w it hin it s d isc r et io n in li mi ting cross-exam

in ation. We ove

rrule poi nt three. Deadly W

eapon Find

ing In hi s f if th po int o f er r o r , ap pe llant co nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed wh en it permi tt ed police off

ic ers to t estif

y a bout a moto r vehi

cl e as a hy

pot hetic ally

dea dly weap on. Appe llantarg

ue s th at suc h te sti

mony wa s l eg al l y an d f ac tual l y i ns uf f i ci en t to s up port t hat finding be ca us e there wa s n o ev i de nc e of act ual da nger t o o t her s, r elying on Mann v. State , 13 S.W.3d89, 92 (Tex . Ap

p.—A usti n 20 00), aff’d , 58 S.W.3d 132, 132 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2001 ). Mann hel d that a mer e h ypo t he t ica l po t en t ial fo rda ng er is no t en o ug h t o su st ain a dead l y weap on f i ndi ng. Id . In Mann , the evidence that

wa s h el d suf f i ci en t to su stai n a de adl y we ap on fi ndi ng was testi

mony that app ellant al

most had a

head-o n collision with anot her car when appellant’s veh ic le crossed the center l i ne . The coll i sion wa s av

oid ed onl y wh en the othe r car took ev

asi ve action. Id . In t his c as e, t he t es t imon y sup po rt ing a de ad ly wea po n fi ndi ng wa s n ot ab out a hy pot hetic al danger. Of

fi cer Pete Arroyo testifi

ed that he saw

ap pella nt’s ve hicl e traveli

ng down High way 281 at about 80 miles pe r ho ur on t he wr ong side o f the roadwa y and i n A rroyo’s l ane. In9

order to avoi d a

he ad -on col l i si on, A rroy o ha d to m ove on to the sh o ul de r . At t ha t t ime, Ar r o yo sta rte d p ur si n g a pp el l an t. Af ter reachi ng the sub div

is ion, the ch

ase contin ued at seven

ty m il es per ho ur . Ar r o yo testifi ed that he stopped t he pursui t because of the n

umb er of chi

ldren he saw ri din g bi kes i n the street and pla yi ng i n y ards who were i

n dan ger. Al tmey er, the residen

t who t ackl ed appella

nt, test if ie d that app ellant almost hit a c hild. Bo bby All en, ano t her subd ivisi

on r eside nt , t est ifi

ed t hat he sa w ap pellant go ingv er y f ast th e w ron g w ay on a on e- wa y street wh er e a lo t of c hildren w er e playing. The t est imony sho we d mu ch mo r e t ha n a hyp o t he t ica l da ng er in the way in whi ch appella nt drove the car an d suppor ted th e dea dl y we ap on f i n di n g. W e ov er ru l e a pp el l an t’s f i f th poi n t. In hi s si xth poin t o f error, appell

ant contends that the trial

court im properly in structed t he jur y on t he r equ irement s for an affirmat ive finding tha t app ellant u sed a de adly wea po n. Wh en an app ellate co ur t re views a jury char ge fo r e rr or , it first ask s whe t her er ro r w as p re ser ved. If no obj ec ti on was made, as i s this case, appell ant mustdemon strate

eg re gi ous h ar m to se cu r e a r ev er sa l. Almanza v. State , 686

S.W .2d 157 , 17 1 (T ex . Cr

i m . A pp. 198 6). Egreg i ousha

rm mea ns the err or i s so s ev ere that the a

ppel l an t has not ha d a f ai r and i m partial tria l . Id . Appe llantco nt ends t hat t he cha rg e fo rc ed t he j ur y to cho os e bet wee n finding app ellant “not guilt y” andf

i n di n g h i m gui l ty wi th an af fi rmati ve f in din g of use of a

deadl y weapon subs

ume d wit hin t he gu ilty verd ict. A review of t he record shows that t he j ury was cl early in structed t o pro ceed to consi derati on of the af f i rm ati ve f i ndi ng on l y i f appe l l an t was f i rst f ound g uil ty. Th e c ha

rge di d n ot ha rm appe l l an t. We overrul

e app el l an t’s s i xth poi nt of error.10 Conclusion We have overruled al

l of appella nt’s poin ts of error. Accordin

gly , we aff irm the trial cou rt’ s j udgm

en t.

Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: April 4, 2002 Do No t Publis

h