NO. 07-06 -018 9-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y14, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ AUGUST INE LOP EZ, JR., APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 5- 408801; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Augustine Lo p e z, Jr., a ppe als his conviction for felon y driv ing w hile int ox ic ated and s entenc e of 30 y ears confinementin the Insti tuti onal Div is ion of the Tex as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m. Backg ro und On June 12, 2 004, the L ubboc k P oli ce Dep artment re cei v ed two 911 cal ls reg ardin g a person dr iv ing er ra ti cal ly on 19 Street in Lubboc k. The cal lers desc ri bed the v ehi cl e as th2

a s il v er , boxy , old er-mode l car . One of t he cal lers follo w ed the v ehi cl e and was abl e to see the d ri v er . She desc ri bed t he dr iv er as appear ing “ int ent o r spac ey ” and not ic ed th at he had a “d eath g ri p” on t he s teer ing w heel
. Corporal J am es R oh l i kh ea rd a rad i o c al l reg ardi ng a p os s i bl e dr i v i ng w hi le int ox ic ated offense in v olv ing a si lv er , older-mode l car . Rohl ik obs er v ed appe ll ant walk ing away f rom a v ehicle th at m atch ed th e de scription of the vehicle gi v en b y

dispat ch. Rohlik re q uest ed appe ll ant t o s top a nd ta lk w it h hi m, butappel lan t fled. Ap pel lan t t ri pped on some s tai rs and w as apprehended by Roh li k. W hil e det ain ing appel lan t, Roh li k s mell ed alc ohol on appel lan t’ s brea th. Rohl ik arrest ed appell ant for

publ ici ntox ic ati on and ev adi ng ar re st. Ro h lik di d notar re st appel lan t for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated becau se he had not seen app ellantin physical cont rol of a v ehicle. Rohlik did not perform fie ld sobriety tests, but o bser

v ed that appell ant had poor bal ance and c oordin ati on as R ohl ik walk ed hi m to t he pat rol car. Dur ing the booki ng proces s at the jai l, appel lan t admitted that he had dr unk alc ohol that ev eni ng . The next mor nin g , appell ant w as take n before a mag is trate for ar ra ig nment. A p p e ll a n tp le d gu il ty t o t h e o f fe n s e o f p u b li cin t o xic a t io n a tt h is h e a ri n g. Su b s e qu e n t ly, appel lan t was ind icted for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. Before tr ial on the dri v ing w hil e i ntox ic ated charg e, ap pel lan t s ti pul ated to two pr ior dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated conv icti ons. D ur ing tr ial , the Stat e offered appe ll ant’ s p lea of g uil ty to pu bli c i ntox ic ati on as ev ide nce that he wa s in tox ic ated on th e ni g ht i n q uest ion
. Appel l a n tp re s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a th e h a s d i a b e t e s a n d t h a th i s d i a b e t i ce p i s o d es3

someti mes mak e hi m di sor ien ted a nd s haky
. Fur ther , appel lan t present ed ev ide nce that he need ed medi cat ion on the nig ht in q uest ion becau se his sug ar w as low
. The ju ry found appel lan t g uil ty

of dr iv ing w hil e intox ic ated and the tri al cour t asses sed a s entenc e of 30 y ears c onfinement. By fo u r is sues , app ell ant a ppeal s h is co nv icti on and sent ence. By hi s first is sue, app ella n tc o nte nds th at th e trial court erred when it allow ed a ppe llant’s plea of pub lic int ox ic ati on to be a dmitted i nto e v ide n ce wh e n t h e pl ea does not show on i ts face that appel lan t was proper ly admoni shed pr ior

to maki ng the ple a. By hi s s econd i ss ue, app ellantconte nds t h a tthe trial court erred byadm itting appe llant’s plea of pub lic int ox ic ati on as proof of intox ic ati on in a d riv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated tr ial
. By hi s t hird and fourth issues, ap pe ll a n tc o nte nds th at th e evidence was bo th legally and factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated.

The Pl ea A p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t hat the t r i a l c o u rte r re d b y a l l o w i n g a d mi s s i o n o f a Preconfin ement Ord er

on w hic h appell ant pled g uil ty to the offense of publi c i ntox ic ati on. Appel lan t c ontends thatthe Preconfin ement O rd er i s i nadmis si ble bec ause itco nst it utes a w ri tten sta tement of t he ac cus ed th at do es not c omply w it h the req uirements i denti fied in Te xa s Code of

Cri min al Proced ure article 38 .22 , section 2. Specif ically , app ellant ’s appel lat e arg ument i s t hat t he Preconfin ement O rd er does not show

on i ts face that“ the acc used, pr ior

to maki ng the sta tement, ei ther recei v ed from a m ag is trate t he war nin g provided in Article 15. 17" or receiv ed the warnings item iz ed in article 38. 22, section 2(a).For ex ample, appel lan t’ s plea w as pro bati v e of w hether he had c onsumed alc ohol 1 on th e ni g ht i n q uest ion
. 4 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.22, § 2( a) ( Ver non 200 5)
. Howev er , attr ial , app ell ant rais ed no ob

j ecti on reg ardi ng th e s ta te me nt ’ s fai l ure to c om pl y w i th ar ti c l e 38 .2 2. Thu s, appel lan t fail ed to preser v e any er ro r re g ard in g the fail ure of appel lan t’ s “ sta tement” to inc lud e the req uis it e admoni shment s for appel lat e re v iew
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3
. 1
. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. Appel lan t al so contends that ev ide nce of appell ant’ s p lea of g uil ty to a c harg e of publ ic in to xicatio n was ina dmis si ble i n a d ri v ing w hil e i ntox ic ated tr ial as proof that app ellantw as into x icated beca use th e stan dard for provi ng intoxi cation is differen t for each charg e. Ag ain , app ell ant fai led to preser v e thi s a ppel lat e i ss ue by ti mely obj ect ion at tr ial and, therefore, has w aiv ed th is i ss ue. Id. F urther , we not e tha t app ell ant’ s g uil ty pl ea on the c harg e of

p u b lici ntox ic ati on i s p ro bati v e, ev en i f not c oncl usi v e on the e lementof int ox ic ati on, i n a d ri v ing w hil e i ntox ic ated tr ial
. Ap pel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led
. 1 Legal an d Factu al Suf

f iciency Appel lan t c ontends that the ev ide nce is both l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rthi s c onv icti on for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. W hen rev iew ing ch all eng es to bo th t he leg al and factu al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce to suppo rt the v erdict, w e firs t rev iew the leg al suf f iciency challen ge. Se e Clew is v . Stat e, 92 2 S.W .2d 126 , 133 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6). If the ev ide nce is l eg all y suffici ent, w e then re v iew the factual suffici ency chal len g e. See id.5

In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce, w e rev iew al l the e v ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r an y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa ctco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t
. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 9 9 S .Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. In c onducti ng a lega l suf fici ency rev iew , an app ellate court ma y

not sit as a th irteen th juror, b u tr a t h er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or unsup por ted by more than a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . Stat e, 75 5 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8). To prov e that a person is gui lty of the offense of dri v ing w hil e i ntox ic ated, the Stat e mu st prove that th e pe rson w as into x ica t e d wh ile ope rating a mot or v ehicle in a p ublic pla ce. T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 49.04( a) ( Ver non 2003). For purpos es of the presentca se, int ox ic ati on i s d efined as “ not h av ing the nor mal use of mental or p h ysica l fa culti es by re ason of the i ntroduct ion of alcoho l, a cont ro ll ed subst ance, a dr ug , a dang erous dr ug , a combi nati on of

two o r more of those subs tanc es, or any othe r subs tanc e i nto t he body .” T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 49.01( 2) (A ) (V er non 200 3)
. App ellant ’s leg a l su f

f iciency issue cha llenges the ev iden ce of app ellant ’s int ox ic ati on. One witn e ss t est ified thatsh e s aw a s il v er v ehi cl e trav eli ng so uth o n Univ ers it y

on Jun e 12 , 200 4. She testif ied th at th e driv er of this v ehicle a ppe ared to fall asl eep and that , w hen he awoke, he d ro v e er ra ti cal ly , s w er v ing ac ro ss the ro ad and bounc ing off

of cur bs. Ba sed on her obs er v ation s, s h e b eli ev ed th at t he dr iv er of the v ehi cl e w as dr unk. Anothe r w it ness saw a s il v er , boxy , ol der-mode l v ehi cl e trav eli ng so uth on University

on Jun e 12 . Th is w itness followed the vehicle, got a good look a t the driv er,App ellantdoe s not cha llenge the “operat ing a moto r v ehicle” or the “in a public 2 pla ce” el ements of the o ffense. H ow ev er , for the sak e of complet eness , w e c oncl ude t hat the re w as suf

f icient evidence t o a ll o w a reason able jury

to have foun d ea ch of these ele ments bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. 6 and was abl e to ide nti fy appel lan t as the dr iver of that v ehi cl e. The w it ness tes ti fied th at a p p e ll a n td ro ve fa s ta n d e rra t ic a ll y a n d t h a th e h a d s e ve ra l n e a r- c o ll is io n s . Fi n a ll y, Cor poral Roh lik t e st if ie d thathe s aw appel lan t walk ing away from a si lv er

v ehi cl e tha t matche d the des cr ipt ion of the v ehi cl e tha t had been re p o rt ed as bei ng i nv olv ed i n a sus pect ed dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated offense. W hen Roh li k attempt ed to tal k to ap pel lan t, appel lan t f led
. W hen appell ant w as apprehended, Rohl ik tes ti fied th at he smel led al cohol on a ppe llant’s brea th. Rohlik also t e s t if ie d t hatapp ellanthad a stereo face p late in his poss ess ion that matc hed a ste re o i n the si lver v ehi cl e tha t R ohl ik

had seen appel lan t w alking away f rom. Rohlik also testif ied that he obse rv ed a ppe llant exhibit poo r balance and coordin ati on and conc lud ed th at ap pel lan t had l ostthe nor mal use of his mental and physi cal facul ti es becau se of the use of al cohol
. Fur ther , t he Preconfin ement O rd er and other records est abl is hed t hat a ppel lan t admi tted that he had been dr ink ing on J une 12 and thathe b e li eved tha t he was i nto x icated . View ing this ev iden ce in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdict, we conclude thatt here was su f f icient evidence for a reason able jury to conclu de that ap pellan t w as into x icated beyond a rea sona ble do ubt
. W e overrule 2 appel lan t’ s l eg al suffici ency i ss ue. Havi ng dete rmine d tha t the ev iden ce w as legally suf f icient to supp o rtapp ellant ’s conv icti on, w e now tur n to the factual suffici ency of t he ev ide nce. W hen a n ap p e ll ant chal len g es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce suppo rt ing his co nv icti on, t he rev iew ing7

cour t mus t det er mine w hether , c onsi der ing al l the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, the j ur y w as ra ti onal ly j ust ified i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty bey ond a reason abl e doubt
. See W ats on v . Sta te, 204 S .W .3d 4 04, 4 15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 200 6). I n performin g a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e mu st gi v e de feren ce to the fact f inde r’s determ inatio ns if supp orted byev iden ce and may not order

a new tri al si mply

because w e may

di sag re e w it h the v erdict. See id. at 41 7. As an a ppe llate cou rt, w e are no t justif ied i n orde ring a ne w trial unless the re is som e objective basis in the record d em onst rating th at the great weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. See id
. Addi ti onal ly , an appel lat e opi nio n ad d ressing fa ctua l suf

f iciency mu st include a discussion of the m ost imp ortan t evi den ce that appel lan t c lai ms und er mines the jur y ’s v erdict. Si ms v . St ate, 99 S. W .3d 6 00, 6 03 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 03). By his factu al suf

f iciency issue, a ppe llant again cha llenges only the jury ’s necessa ry findi ng thatappel lan t was int ox ic ated. Ap pel lan t i denti fies ev ide nce est abl is hin g that he suffered from hig h bl ood press ure and dia betes that , w hen notpromptl y medi cat ed, c an re sul t i n s y mptoms that lea v e the appearance that appe lla nt i s i ntox ic ated. C onsi der ing thi s ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, the jur y coul d hav e conc lud ed that appel lan t w as sufferin g from diabeti c sy mptoms rat her than i ntox ic ati on on June 12 . H ow ev er , t he j ur y heard the tes ti mony

of two ey ew it ness es about appel lan t’ s e rrati c d ri v ing and coul d reason abl y i nfer from thi s t est imony

thatappel lan t had l ostthe nor mal use of his mental and physi cal facult ies
. Addi ti onal ly , t he j ur y heard ev ide nce that appel lan t had al cohol on h is breath, admitted t hat h e had dr unk alc ohol on June 12, and c haract er iz ed hi msel f as hav ing been int ox ic ate d
. Con si der ing al l of this ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c annot say thatthe8

ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v erdict was so w eak or that the c ontrar y ev ide nce w as so strong that a rati onal j ur

y co uld not hav e det er mined that appel lan t c o m m it te d the offense of dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated bey ond a re asona ble doubt . W e o ver ru le appel lan t’ s fact ual suffici ency

i ss ue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led eac h of appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Publ is h.