# FILED September 26, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SES SION, 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9611-CC-00405 ) Appell ee, ) ) SEVIER COUNTY ) V. ) ) HON. WIL LI AM R. HOLT , JR. , JUDGE BO BB Y T EAS TE R, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (DU I)
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 CLI NTON J. MORGAN Assist ant Publ ic Def ender Assist ant Attor ney General 102 Mims Avenue 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Newport, TN 37821-3614 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvil le, TN 37243-0943 AL FRED C. SCHMUTZER, JR. Dist ri ct Attor ney General G. S COTT GREEN Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 125 Co urtAven ue, Room 301 -E Seviervi ll e, TN 37862
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The De fend ant, Bobby Teaster , appeal s as of ri ght pursuant t o Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appell ate Proc edure. Foll owing a j ury t ri al i n the Criminal Co urt o f Se vier C ou nty, th e D efe nd an t wa s co nvic ted of d rivin g unde r the influence , first offense. Th e trial court sen tence d De fenda nt to serve elev en (11) months, twenty- nine (29) days, with f ifty percent ( 50%) m inimum service pri orto rele ase . The sentence was o rdered to r un consecut iv e to a pr iorten ( 10) yearpenit enti ary s entence for bri bery and subornat ion ofperjury i n Case No. 5675 in Sevi er Coun ty . Def endantrai ses two issues o n appeal: (1) thatthe evidence wa s ins uffic ien t to s us tain a verdi ct ofguil ty b eyond a r easonable doubt offirst offen se D UI, a nd; (2 ) that t he trial c ourt erred by orde ring con secu tive sen tenc ing. W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

I. SUFFI CIE NCY OF THE EVI DENCE
W hen an accused chal lenges t he suff ici ency ofthe co nvic ti ng evi dence, the standard is whether, after r eviewing t he evidence in th e ligh t m os t favo rab le to the prose ction , a ny rat ional tr ierof f act coul d have f ound the ess enti al elem ents ofthe cr ime beyond a rea son able dou bt. Ja cks on v. Vir gin ia , 4 43 U. S. 307, 319 (1 979 ). This stan dard is app licable to fi ndings of guil t pr edicat ed upon directevidenc e, circum stantial eviden ce or a com bination o f dire ct an d circumstanti al evide nce . State v. Matt hews , 80 5 S
. W.2d 77 6, 77 9 ( Ten n. Cr i m. App. 1990) . On appeal , t he Stat e is ent it led t o the st rongestlegi ti mate vi ew o f the evide nce and all infere nce s the refrom
. State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W.2d 832,-3-

835 (Te nn. 1 978 ). Bec aus e a ve rdict o f g uilt re moves the presumption o f innocen c e and repl aces i t wi th a presumption o f gui lt , t he accused has t he burden i n thi s courtof i ll ustrati ng why the evid en ce is insuffi cientto support t he verdictret urned by the t ri er offact. Sta te v. T ug gle , 639 S. W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 198 2); State v. Grace , 493 S .W .2d 47 4, 476 (Ten n. 197 3).
Question s con cern ing th e cre dibility of t he wit nesses, the wei ght and val ue to be giv en the ev idence, as well as all fact ual i ssues rai sed by t he evi dence, are resol ved by th e trie r of fa ct, n ot th is cou rt. State v. Pappas , 754 S. W .2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim . App.), perm. t o appeal den ied , id . (Ten n. 198 7). Nor m ay this cou rt rewei gh or r eeval uate t he evide nce . Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835. A jury v erdict approved by t he tr ial judge ac credi ts t he Stat e’s wi tnesses and r esolves a ll con flicts in favo r of the State
. Grace , 493 S.W .2d a t 476
.
At approxi mately11:00 p.m. on Ja nuary 18, 1994, Rene Ke nda ll and J eff W arner, both ofwhom are Pigeon For ge police officers, w ere on pa trol and dro ve int o the par king l ot ofthe Gol d Star g as stat ion an d m ark et. T he Go ld Star sits at an inte rse ctio n o f two pu blic r oa ds . Th ey im m ed iate lysaw Defendantwalki ng un ste ad ilyfrom a truck at the g as pu mp to the inside of the store . The o fficers stopped and watc hed him while notin g tha t he h ad le ft his truc k run ning
. A few minutes lat er, Defendantwalked u nsteadi lyback to his t ruck and gotinsi de the vehi cle. The off icers pull ed up to t he tru ck where Def endant was s itti ng by him self. Offic er K en da ll req ue ste d D efe nd an t to g et o ut o f the truc k. K en da ll smelled alcohol on Defendant , and not iced thathe was unst eady gett ing outof the tr uck. The offi cersand Def endantwe nt back i nto t he store because i t was cold . Inside the s tore, D efen dan t agre ed to sub m it to field so briety te sts.-4- First, Defendantfai led t he alphabettest . Off icer Ken da ll t esti fi ed that Defendantslur red his w ord s an d co uld not saythe al phabet i n the correct o rder. Second, he fa iled the stan d-on -one fo ot tes t. Offi cer Kendal l obser ved t hat Defendantwa s un ab le to con trol h is bala nce . Third, Defendantfai led t he heel -to -to e test. According to Off icer Kendall , Defendant could not keep his balance wh ile attem pting to wa lk a stra ight line
. Off ice r Ke nd all dete rm ined De fend ant to be ext remely impaired. Atthi s pointDefendantwas plac ed underarres t for D UI, and Off ice r Ke nd all ask ed him to empty his pocket s. Defendant removed a glass vi al of white po wde r fro m his coa t pocket . Off icer Kendall then searched Defendantand removed a bag of whi te powder fr om his shi rt pocket and a tube pipe f rom his bac k pocket . The powder was sentto t he cri me lab, and ittest ed pos itive for co cain e. D efen dan t said th e co cain e wa s for h is pe rson al us e.
Defendantwas taken to t he poli ce stat ion w here Off icer Kendall asked Defendantto su bm it to a blo od te st for d rugs and alco hol. Defendantref used the blood test butsa id he would t ake an i ntoxi meter t est. Neit her t est was administ ered. The proof at t ri al was thatDe fend ant h ad p reviou sly pled guilty to misdemeanordrug charges in t he Trial Justi ce Court of Sevi erCounty regardi ng the coc ain e a nd dru g p ara ph ern alia fou nd in his po sse ssio n a t the tim e o f his arre st for D UI.

Offi cerW arne r testified that o n Ja nua ry 18 , 199 4, he was on p atrol w ith O ffice r Ke nd all. He saw the Defendantstagger ing t o his t ruck. Offi cer Warner was presentduri ng the f iel d sobri ety test s giv en to Def endant, and in hi s opini on, De fenda nt was “highly und er the influen ce of eithe r alcoho l and/or dru gs.”-5- The defense proof consist e d of t he test imony ofIvaMcMahan, the De fen da nt’s aun t. She test if ied t hat on Janua ry 18, 1994, t he Defendantcall ed he r from th e G old Sta r m ark et fo r as sista nc e b ec au se he ha d ru n o ut o f ga s in his vehi cle. She and her h usb and picke d D efen dan t up a nd to ok h im to his t ruck on W ald en ’s Creek. After refueli ng the truck, they t hen foll owed Defendant back to the Go ld Star w here Defendantstopped and theywent back home. She test if ied thatDefendantdid notappear t o be dru nk , an d th at s he did no t sm ell any alcohol on him. She also di d notr eme mbe ratwh att i me she las t saw Def endant on th at nig ht.
Tennessee Code Annotated secti on 55-10- 401(a) provi des in p artas foll ows: (a) Itis unl awful foranyperson t o dri ve orto be i n physi cal co ntr ol ofany aut omobile .
. . on any ofthe publ ic road s an d highway s of t he stat e, . . . or anyother premises which i s general lyfr equented by the publ ic atlarge, whi le: (1) Under the i nfl uence o f an y into xican t, marij uana, narcoti c drug, or dr ug produci ng sti mulati ng effec ts on the c entra l nervo us s ystem ; . . . . First, from the test imony attrial, D efe nd an t wa s cle arly in physi cal co ntr ol ofhis tru ck. The off icers observ ed Defendantget outofhis r unning t ruck, enter the store, and then retur n to hi s tr uck moments lat er wi th t he engine s ti ll runni ng. See State v. Lawrence , 849 S. W .2d 761 (Tenn. 1993) . Second, he was clea rly on premises fre qu ented by t he publi c at l arge. The Gold Stargas sta ti on and market is l ocated i n a busy part ofPigeon Forge. It logic ally fo llow s th at th e G old Staris an establ ishment f requent ed by t he publi c. Thi rd, De fen da nt w as clea rly underthe influ enc e of a n into xican t. Based on Off icer Kendall ’s ex peri ence and observati ons, he determined Defendant to be “v ery i mpaired” and drunk. Offi cer-6-

W arnerfu rther testified that he obse rved D efend ant to be “highly und er th e influen ce o f either alco hol a nd/o r drug s.” A rati onal j ury c ould hav e concl uded thatthe Def endant’ s app earan ce , his s tag ge ring wa lk, his slur red spe ec h, a nd his failure to adequat elyperf orm each of t he fi eld sobr iety te sts de m ons trate d that the D efen dan t was und er the influen ce o f an into xican t.
In vi ewing t he evi dence in the l ightmost favorabl e to t he Stat e, t he evidence was sufficie nt to sup port a con viction fo r first offen se, D UI. This i ssue is witho ut m erit.
II
. SENTENCI NG
Defendantargues t h at the trial court erre d in orde ring con secu tive sentenci ng. De fend ant wa s co nvic ted on Sept ember 26, 1995 ofbri bery and subornat ion of per

jury and was sentenc ed to t en (10) years in pr ison. (Case No. 5675, Se vier Cou nty). He w as se rving that se ntenc e wh en bro ugh t before th e tri al cou rt a nd convi cted of DUI. The DUI sentence was ordered to be ser ved con sec utively to the s ente nce s for b ribery a nd s ubo rnatio n of p erjury.

W hen an accused chal lenges t he length, range, or t he mann er of serv ice ofa sentence, thi s courthas a duty to conduct a de novo revi ew of t he sentence wit h a presumption that t he determinations made by the tr ial court are co rrect . Tenn. Co de A nn. § 40-3 5-40 1(d) . Th is pre sum ption is “con diti oned u pon the affirmative showing i n the record t hat t he tr ial courtconsi dered t he sentenc ing pri ncipl es and all relevant facts a nd circu ms tance s.” State v. Ashby , 823 S. W .2d-7-

166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). There are, however, except ions t o the presumption of correctness. First, the record must demonst rat e thatthe tr ial courtconsi dered the sen tenc ing p rinciple s an d all rele van t facts and circum stan ces . Id. Second, the presumpti on does not applyto t he legal conc lusions re ache d by the trial court in sent encing. Third, the presumption d oes not appl y when t he deter minati ons made by the t rial court are predicated upon uncontrovert ed facts. Sta te v. Sm ith , 898 S.W .2d 742, 745 (Tenn. Crim . App . 199 4), perm . to appeal denied , id . ( Tenn. 199 5).
Ifour r evi ew ref lect s thatthe t ri al court f oll owed the st atut ory s entenci ng procedur e, imposed a lawf ul sent ence aft er havi ng giv en due consi derat ion and properweightto t he fact s and prin cip les se t outunder t he sentenc ing l aw, and thatthe trial c ou rt’s find ing s of fac t are ad eq ua tely support ed by t he record, t hen we may not modify th e s entence e ven i f we woul d have pr efer red a di ff erent resu lt. State v. Fl etcher , 805 S.W .2d 7 85, 7 89 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 1).
Our revi ew requi res an anal ysi s of: (1) The evidenc e, if any, recei ved atthe tri al and sentenci ng hea ri ng; ( 2) t he present ence report; (3) the pr inci ples of sentenci ng and the arguments of c ounsel rel ati ve t o sentenci ng alt ernat iv es; ( 4) the nature and c harac teristics of the offen se; (5 ) any miti gati ng or enhanci ng factors; (6) any st atements made by t he defendantin hi s own behalf ; and (7) the de fen da nt’s potent ial forrehabi li tat ion or tr eatment. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40- 35- 102, -103 , & -21 0; see State v. Sm ith , 735 S. W .2d 859, 86 3 (Tenn . Cri m. App. 198 7).-8- Upon revi ew ofthe record, we f ind t hat t he tr ial courtdid notexpl ici tl y set forth its re as on ing in order ing cons ecuti ve sent encing, and hence, fail ed to f oll ow properstatutory se ntenc ing proc edu re. The refore, review by this cou rt is de novo witho ut a p resu m ption of co rrectn ess . Upon req ue st b y the De fen da nt, th e tria l court pro ceeded to sentence Defendantimm edia tely follow ing th e jury ve rdict. Th e S tate sub m itted fac ts in its argum ent duri ng the hear ing regardi ng the Def enda nt’s extens ive cri minal history , and defense c ounsel admi tt ed thatthe cr iminal hist ory recit ed bythe St ate was “esse ntially” as th e pro sec utor h ad s ubm itte d. Th is record r efl ects t hat t he Defendanthas bee n co nvicte d of b ribery, s ubo rnatio n of p erjury, p oss ess ion w ith int ent to se ll or delive r Sc hed ule IV drug s, simple po ssessi on of coc aine, possessi on wit h int ent to sel l or de liver m ariju an a, p os se ssio n w ith in ten t to s ell or del iv ercoc aine , and ano ther D UI c onv iction. B oth o f De fend ant’s arres ts for DUI and the c onduct whi ch led to t he bri bery and subornat ion ofperj ury c harges were committed by Defendantwhil e he was on probat ion and/or par ole f rom pri or felony conv icti ons.

During the relat iv elybri ef sent encing hea ri ng, the t ri al courtdid not s tate on the record how he had appli ed the pr inci pals ofsentenci ng found i n Tennessee Code An nota ted s ectio n 40 -35- 103 , failed to submit s pecif ic f indi ngs offac t as req uire d b y T en ne sse e C od e A nn ota ted sec tion 40 -35 -20 9(c ), an d d id not stat e reasons for t he decis ion to or de r cons ecutive se ntenc ing. Ho weve r, pursuantto Tennessee Code Annot ated sect ion 40- 35-115, we fi nd thatthe record support s by a preponderance ofthe ev idence t hat Def e ndant i s an offender whose record of cr iminal acti vi ty i s ext ensiv e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40--9-

35-11 5(b)(2). Furt hermore, we fi nd from the r ecord as a who le that con secu tive sentenci ng is ne ce ssa ry to p rote ct th e p ub lic fro m De fen da nt a nd is re as on ab ly r elat ed to the seve rity of the offen ses com m itted by De fend ant. Stat e v . W il kerson , 905 S .W .2d 93 3, 938 (Ten n. 199 5).
The De fen da nt o n a pp ea l relie s up on the trial c ou rt’s failure to sp ec ifica lly setforth f acts t o just ify a consecut iv e sen tence in support ofhis argument that this court s hould reverse the t ri al court and order t he sentenc e to be se rved co nc urre ntly to t he pri or f elonyconvi cti ons. While t he tr ial courtmay have fai led to speci fy c ert ain f acts t o suppo rt the consec uti ve sent encing, we fi nd thatthe reco rd pro vides the fa cts n ece ssa ry to affirm the trial c ourt’s action
.
Findi ng the ev idence s uff ici ent t o supportthe conv ict ion, and tha t the re is no error in orde ring th e s entence t o be serv ed consecut iv elyto t he pri or convi cti ons forbri bery and subornat ion ofperj ury, we aff ir m the judgment of the trial cou rt.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, Judge

___________________________________ JOHN K . BYERS, Senior Judge