State v. Pangelinan ( 2022 )

480
Submitted May 11, affirmed June 23, 2022
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TORY RICARDO PANGELINAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Baker County Circuit Court
20CR08752; A174705
513 P3d 624
Matthew B. Shirtcliff, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 320 Or App 480 (2022) 481
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of driving under the influ-
ence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010 (2020), amended by Or Laws
2021, ch 253, § 6, ch 480, § 1. He received an enhanced fine
for driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15
or higher, pursuant to ORS 813.010(6)(d) (2020). He appeals,
assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for
judgment of acquittal (MJOA). We affirm.
“We review the denial of an MJOA for whether a
rational factfinder could find, after viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the state and making reason-
able inferences and credibility choices, that the state proved
every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Davis, 261 Or App 38, 39, 323 P3d 276 (2014).
Defendant was found off the side of a highway with his car
stuck in a snowbank, perceptibly intoxicated. His BAC was
0.24 approximately three to three and one-half hours after
he was found. Because a reasonable factfinder could believe
defendant’s initial statements that the accident had just
happened and that he had last consumed alcohol over an
hour before and disbelieve his subsequent conflicting state-
ments and testimony that he only started drinking after the
accident, the trial court did not err. See State v. Dollman,
303 Or App 168, 169-70, 463 P3d 607, rev den, 366 Or 827(2020) (concluding that “symptoms of impairment” shortly
after driving coupled with a later BAC test can “support an
inference of BAC at the time of driving”).
Affirmed.