### NUM BER 13-06- 660- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
TR A CY TH OM A S R HOD ES, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of A rans as Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Trac y

R hodes , w as charg ed w it h drivi ng w hil e i ntox ic ated ("D W I") , a thi rd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04 (Verno n 20 03). Af ter a jury trial, Rho des w as conv ic ted of his third DW I v iol ati on. See i d. §§ 1 2.42, 49.0 9 ( Ver non Su pp. 200 7). Th e trial co urt imp osed e ight years' imprisonm ent and a $50 0 f ine. By tw o issues, Rho des chal len g es the l eg al and factu a l suf fici ency of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing theA f our - poi nt u- t ur n as descr i bed by Bi t t l e was when R hodes t ur ned, backed up , t ur ned and backed 1 up a gai n, and f i nal l y m ade t he t ur n. 2 conv ic ti on. W e aff ir m. I. B A CKGRO UND Acc or din g to the w it ness es at t ri al, R hodes w ent i nto a co nv eni ence sto re for direct ion s a ro und 12: 30 a. m. on Febr uar y 11, 2006. The s to re cl er k, Dav id Anderson, not iced th at Rho des h ad b lood shot ey es an d tha t his face w as red. Ano the r store clerk, Ni g el Bi ttl e, ob ser

v ed th at Rhodes w as tal ki ng unus ual ly l oudl y on t he c ell phone, l ooked irri tate d, slurred his spee ch, and st aggered his steps aro und the sto re. Both clerks w ere tr ain ed on how

to ide nti fy in tox ic ated per sons
. Both cl er ks testi fied that w hen they f irst saw Rho des, they

anti ci pated he w oul d be a probl em cus tomer

. Anderson tes ti fied th at he off er ed to hel p R hodes l ook up th e des ti nati on on a map. Susp ect ing R hodes w as int ox ic ated, Anderson ask ed Rho des if he knew it w as il leg al to be i ntox ic ated in publ ic

. At t hat p oin t, Rho des tur ned around an d l eft the s tor e. Bi ttl e tes ti fied th at R hodes had t ro ubl e ent er ing hi s c ar w hen l eav ing the sto re , and he al most back ed i nto a g as pump approx imat ely three c ar

l eng ths aw ay

from t he par ki ng lot

. Bi ttl e g ot i n hi s c ar and f o llo wed R h odes for a w hil e. He then cal led the pol ic e. Rho des w as "sw er

v ing i nto a nother

l ane and off

the [F ult on Bea ch] road t ow ard s the
w ater ," t hen "s topped dead in the ro ad" and made a four- poi nt u- tur n in the middl e of the 1
ro ad, a cc or din g to Bi ttle ’s testi mony
. Bi ttl e al so tes ti fied th at R hodes w as "int ox ic ated, alc ohol or

othe rw is e," bu t he ru led out the p oss ibi li ty of dr ug i ntox ic ati on. Of f icer Dav id Rollins respon ded t o the police call reportin g a po ssible drun k driv er. He tes ti fied th at R hodes "r an off the si de of the ro ad" atthe si g ht of the p atrol v ehi cl e,3

cam e ba ck on the road , and the n "jot ted " i nto a nea rby parking lot w ithou t using the tu rn si g nal . After Off ic er

R oll ins st opped R hodes , he smel led al cohol on R hodes 's br eath and bo d y . H e t e s t i fi e d t h a t“ [ R h o d e s ' s ] e y e s w e r e b l o o d s h o t , a n d [ h i s ] s p e e c h w a s s l ur re d.” Off ic er R oll ins al so found an open be er ca n i nsi de th e v ehi cl e betw een t he dr iv er se at an d the c onsol e. O f f ic e r R o ll in s c o n d u c t e d t h re e f ie ld -s o b ri e t y t e s t s
. Du ri n g t h e Ho ri zo n t a l G a ze Ny sta g mus (“ HG N” ), Rho des' s ey es w er e “flu tter ing [and ] bou nci ng ” and s how ed “ si x cl ues [of int ox ic ati on], thr ee i n eac h ey e.” N ex t, Off ic er R oll ins co nduct ed a w alk -a nd- tur n tes t. Rhod es w as “ unste ady on his feet ,” could not follow the in struction s, and was “using his
ar ms t o bal ance. ” Ther e w er e s ev en c lue s o f intox ic ati on, w her e nor mall y , ac cordin g to Off ic er Rol li ns, “tw o cl ues [w oul d be] s uff ic ien t t o c oncl ude t hat [ a dr iv er] i s n ine ty -s ev en perce nt into x icated .” Finally , Of f icer Rollins condu cted a one -leg stan d. Rhod es “fell to his side an d cou ld not comp lete th e task. ” T he b ackup of

f icer, Mario Garcia, w as close enou gh to obse rv e the w alk-and -turn and t he one- leg st and t est s. H e tes ti fied th at R hodes 's cl othes w er e i n di sarra y, that Rhod es slurred his spe ech, and that Rhode s p erforme d poo rly o n the t ests. Of

f icer Garcia als o s mell ed al cohol on R hodes

. Beca use Off ic er

Roll ins 's patrol v ide o c amera mal functi oned, Off ic er Gar ci a us ed his ca mera to record the int er v iew pr oces s. The v ide o show ed that the w eather w as w ind y and that Rhodes w as not able to maintai n balanc e dur ing the tes ts. O ff ic er R oll ins tes ti fied that the w ind co uld aff ect Rho des' s bal ance to s ome deg re e; ho w ev er , O ff ic er R oll ins w as als o looki ng for d iv ide d att enti on, w hic h w as another cl ue of i ntox ic ati on he der iv ed from the o ne- leg st and t est

. Both of the officers c oncl uded t hat R hodes w as int ox ic ated andT EX
. T RAN SP
. C OD E A NN
. § 724. 015( 1) ( Ver non Supp. 2007) ( “ i ft he p er son r ef uses t o sub m i t t o t he 2 ta k i n g o f th e s p e c i m e n , t h a t re fu s a l m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e i n th e s u b s e q u e n t p ro s e c u ti o n ”)

. 4 ar re ste d hi m. At t he j ail , R hodes appe a re d t o unders tand the s tatut or y w ar nin g s g iv en by

the 2 off ic ers, but h e r efused to tak e a b re ath t est

. At t ri al, R hode s st ip u la te d to tw o pr ior
conv ic ti ons for D W I. The j ur y co nv ic ted R hodes of felony DW I, and t his appeal ens ued. II. S UFFI CI ENCY OF E VI D ENC E A
. St and ard o f Rev iew In ev alu ati ng the leg al suffici e n cy o f ev ide nce, w e v iew

the ev ide nce “i n the l ig ht
m o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic t ” an d d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n y “r a t io n a l t ri e r o f fa c tco u ld h a ve f o u n d the essen tial elem ent s of the of f ense beyond a rea sona ble do ubt .” Escamil la v. State , 143 S.W .3d 814, 817 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2004) ; see a lso Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 319 ( 1979)

. The l eg al s uffi c i en c y

o f t he e v i de nc e i s me as ur ed a g ai ns t th e el em en ts o f t he c r i me pr esumi ng that the tri al cour t gav e the co rrectj ur

y ch ar g e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 240 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997)

. An acq uit tal is onl y r eser v ed for a s it uati on w her e the re i s a n act ual fail ur e i n the Sta te' s p ro of. Id. at 24 0; Har tm an v . St ate , 1 9 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 6 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2006 , pet . dism’d ). In ev alu ati ng the factual suffici ency of the ev ide nce, co urts v iew the ev ide nce “i n a
neu tral light.” Vodoc hodsk y v . St ate , 158 S.W .3d 502, 510 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ; Zul ian i
v. State , 97 S. W .3d 589 , 593 -94 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 3). “Ev id e n c e c a n b e f actu ally ins uff ic ien t i n one of tw o w ay s: (1 ) w hen the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v er dic t i s s o w eak that the v er dic t s e e m s clear ly w ro ng and manifest ly unj ust , and ( 2) w hen t he s uppor ti ng5

evidence is out w eighed b y the great w eight and prepo nde rance of the contrary ev iden ce so as to ren der the v erdict c learlyw rong and m anif estly unju st.” Rob er ts v. State , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2007)

. W e ar e per mitt ed to s ubst it ute o ur j udg ment for the jury 's on the q uest ion of w itness cred ibility

a n d weig ht of

ev iden ce de term inatio ns, “albeit to a v erylimited d egree.” See M ar shal l v. State , 21 0 S. W .3 d 61 8, 6 25 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 17 ( Tex . C ri m. Ap p. 20 06) ). Nev erthel ess , our

rev iew should be deferent ial w it h a “h ig h lev el of ske pti ci sm abo ut t he jury 's v erdict required be fore a reversal can occur.” Rob er ts , 220 S.W .3d a t 524

. B. A pp licab le Law “[A] p erson commi ts an offense i f that pe rs on i s i ntox ic ated w hil e oper ati ng a motor
v ehicle in a pub lic place.” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04( a)

. If the S tate can pr ov e tha t a defendant has pr ev iou sl y been conv ic ted “ tw o ti mes of any othe r off ense re lat ing to the oper ati ng of a motor

v ehi cl e w hil e intox ic ated, ” the Dr iv ing W hil e Intox ic ated off ense at t ri al becomes a felo ny

of the t hird deg re e. Id. § 49 .09( b) (2 ). “I ntox ic ated” i s d ef in e d as “ not h av ing the nor mal mental or phy si cal facul ti es by
reaso n of introd uction of alcoho l . . . i nto the bo dy.” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 01( 2) (A ) (V er non 200 3)

. Therefor e, a hy pothet ic all y correctjur

y charg e w oul d as k t he j ur y to find that Rho des w as (1 ) oper ati ng a mot or v ehi cl e, ( 2) i n a p ubl icpl ace, ( 3) w hil e i ntox ic ated, (4 ) due t o i ntroduct ion of alc ohol int o his body , and (5 ) w as pr ev iou sl y conv ic ted tw o ti mes of Dr iv ing W hil e Int ox ic ated. Id. §§ 49. 04( a) , 49. 09( b) (2 ); see Malik , 953 S.W .2d a t 240 ; Fl or es v. State , 139 S.W .3d 61, 66 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2004, pet. re f’d) ; see a lso Cas on
v. State , N o. 13 -0 4- 301- CR , 200 5 T ex . App. LEX IS 5 651, at * 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti6

Jul y 21, 2005, no pet .) ( mem. op.) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Ev ide nce of into x ic ati on may i ncl ude: (a ) sl ur re d speech, (b) bloods hot ey es, (c) the
sme ll of alcoho l on the person , (d) unstea dy bala nce, (e) a staggered gait, or (f) the sm ell of alc ohol on t he br eath. See Cotton v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d 140,142 n.3 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1 9 8 5 ) ; Va lles

v. Sta te , 817 S.W .2d 1 38, 1 41 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 1991, no p et.) ( ci ti ng Anni s v . St ate , 578 S.W .2d 406, 407 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1979) ). The jur y m ay also cons ide r the refusal to t ake a br eath tes t as ev id e n ce o f i n to x ic ati on. T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN
. § 724.015 ; Z a v

a la v . Sta te , 89 S.W .3d 1 34, 1 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, no p et.) (ci ti n g Br igh t v . St ate , 865 S.W .2d 135 , 157 (Tex. App .–Corp us Christi 199 3, pe t. ref 'd)). C. Leg al S uf

fi cien cy A nal y sis By hi s first is sue, R hodes arg ues that the tw o c onv eni ence sto re w it ness es had an
ex pect ati on th at he w as int ox ic ated; therefore, he r eason s, thei r tes ti mony is unre li abl e and doe s no t prov e hi s l ac k of ph y s i c al or me nt al fac ul ti es
. Ev en i f w e ag r ee d w ith this
ar g ument, itdoes not under mine the l eg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce in this ca se. The
ar re sti ng off ic er 's tes ti mony wa s su ff ic ien t t o es tabl is h the el ement of i ntox ic ati on. See Har tm an , 1 9 8 S. W .3 d a t 83 5 (cit in g W his enant v. State , 55 7 S. W .2 d 10 2, 1 05 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 197 7) (testimo ny of police of

f icer is suf

f icient to estab lish intoxication)). Har tm an, in par

ti cul ar , i s a nal og ous to t h is c ase. H artman w as ar re ste d for DW I. Id. at 83 1. At tr ial , a sta te tro oper testi fied that Har

tman' s ey es w er e gl ass y and bloo dshot and t hat s he l ack ed bal ance. Id. at 83 6. He tes ti fied t h a t h e s mell ed a strong odor of
a l c o h o l fro m H a rt ma n a n d h e r v e h i c l e , a n d h e c o n d u c t e d fi e l d s o b r i e t y t est s. Id. The backu p troop er obse rv ed Hartm an stu mb le during the te sts and foun d a ha lf-emp ty bot tle7

of li q uor in the v ehi cl e. Id. Both troopers c oncl uded t hat H artman w as int ox ic ated based on th eir ex per ien ce, train ing , and obs er v ati ons at t he s cene. Id. Har tman arg ued t hat t he fiel d s obr iet y tes ts w er e unr eli abl e becau se of t he effects of pass ing traff ic , t he c old w eather , and her hi g h- heel ed boot s. Id. a t8 3 5

. W h i l e we certain ly app reciate d the dif

f iculties po sed by f ashio nab le shoe s, w e ne v erthe less held in Har tm an t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e w a s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o v e t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f D WI based on t he obs er

v ati ons of the troopers. Id. The same is tr ue here. Vi ew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the v er dic t, a r ati onal tr ier of fact c oul d hav e f ound the element of into x ic ati on bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. The off ic ers found a hal f-empty beer ca n i n R hodes 's ca r, and they smell ed alco hol f ro m both his person and breath. Hi s ey es w er e blo odsho t, and he sl ur re d hi s s peech

. Both Off ic er Rol li ns and O ff ic er

Gar ci a tes ti fied to R hodes 's phy si cal mani festati ons of into x ic ati on. Add itiona lly , Rh o d e s r ef used to giv e a brea th spe cime n. Accordin gly , w e overrule Rho des' s first is sue. D. Fact ual Su ff icien cy A nal y sis By hi s s econd i ss ue, R hodes ch all eng es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce. Rhod es again dispu tes th at he wa s i n toxicated a nd co nte nds th e store clerks w ere
unr eli abl e w it ness es becau se they had the e x pect ati on of hi s i ntox ic ati on befor e theyev en made c ontac t w it h hi m. H ow ev er , t he j ur y heard i ndi v idu al tes ti mony aboutal l si x

of the ind ica to rs o f

i n tox ic ati on di sc uss ed abov e. See C otton , 686 S.W .2d at 142 n.3. The se ind i c a t o r s w e r e b l o o d s h o t e y e s , s l u r r e d s p e e c h , s t a g g e r e d s t e p s i n t h e s t o r e , a l a ckof b a la n ce d u ring the sobr iet y tes ts, and the o dor

of alc ohol from R hodes 's br eath and8

person. Ad dit ion all y , R hodes 's r efusal to t ake th e br eath tes t i s a ls o ev ide nce of int ox ic ati on. Zav

ala , 865 S. W .3d a t 138

. N ev er th el es s , R ho de s arg ue s th at th e w i nd on t he n i g hto f t he a r r es t pl ay ed s om e role in his lack of

balan ce during the tests. As w e ha v e alread y note d, w e rejecte d this very
ar g ument i n Har

tm an. 198 S. W .3d a t 836 -3 7. T he p olice of f icers did not base their
conc lus ion s s ole ly

on t he s obr iet y

tes ts. Id. at 83 6 ( “I mport antl y , Ha rt m a n does not addr ess the ev ide nce of t he strong odor of al cohol

. . . .” ). Ev ide nce of th e ot h er indicat ors—exclusiv e of Rhode s’s poor pe rf o rm ance on the sobriety tests—w as no t so
w eak that the v er dic t s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , and i t i s n ot ou tw eig hed by the cont ra ry

ev ide nce. See R ober

ts , 220 S.W .3d at 524; Har tm an , 198 S. W .3d a t 836
- 37. Acc or din g ly , w e ov er ru le Rho des’ s s econd i ss ue. III
. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e conclu de the ev iden ce w as legally and factu ally suf f icien t t o su ppo rt the v er dic t, w e ov er ru le Rho des’ s i ss ues and affirm the j udg ment.

GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e

Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.