State v. Drinnon ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1997 SESSION
September 5, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9611-CR-00431
Appellee, )
) Hamblen County
V. )
) Honorable Ben K. Wexler, Judge
)
MICHAEL DRINNON, ) (DUI)
)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
George W. Eichelman Charles W. Burson
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
D. Clifton Barnes Peter M. Coughlan
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
1609 College Park Drive Criminal Justice Division
P.O. Box 11 450 James Robertson Parkway
Morristown, TN 37813-1618 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. Berkeley Bell, Jr.
District Attorney General
John F. Dugger, Jr.
Victor J. Vaughn
Assistant District Attorneys General
Hamblen County Justice Center
510 Allison Street
Morristown, TN 37814
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
PAUL G. SUMMERS,
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Michael Drinnon, was convicted by a jury of driving under
the influence (DUI) and driving on a revoked license. Both convictions were for
second offenses for each individual crime. He received 11 months and 29 days,
with a 50% release eligibility date for the DUI conviction and 11 months and 29
days for driving on a revoked license.1 He appeals challenging the sufficiency of
the convicting evidence and his sentence. Upon review, we affirm.
FACTS
At approximately one in the morning a Morristown police officer observed
the appellant driving 30 miles an hour in a 45 mile-an-hour zone. The officer
noticed that the appellant was riding his brakes and weaving within his lane. The
officer pulled the appellant over and requested his driver's license. The
appellant was unable to produce a driver's license. When asked if he had been
drinking, the appellant stated that he had consumed two beers.
The officer requested that the appellant perform a series of field sobriety
tests. Based upon the officer's observations and experience, he felt the
appellant failed each of these tests. The officer asked the appellant to take a
chemical test to determine his blood alcohol content. He refused stating that he
had taken two pain pills. Based upon the foregoing information, the officer
placed the appellant under arrest.
I
1
Th e ap pellan t wa s to se rve 4 5 da ys on this co nvictio n w ith the re m aind er serv ed o n pro batio n.
-2-
In his first issue the appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction for DUI. He argues that no rational jury could have
found him guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
Great weight is accorded jury verdicts in criminal trials. Jury verdicts
accredit state's witnesses and resolve all evidentiary conflicts in the state's favor.
State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983); State v. Banes, 874
S.W.2d 73, 78 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). On appeal, the state is entitled to both
the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which
may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978).
Guilty verdicts remove the presumption of innocence, enjoyed by defendants at
trial, and replace it with a presumption of guilt. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474(Tenn. 1973). Appellants, therefore, carry the burden of overcoming a
presumption of guilt when appealing jury convictions. Id.When appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court
must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979);
State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. 1985); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). The
weight and credibility of a witness' testimony are matters entrusted exclusively to
the jury as the triers of fact. State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984);
Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978).
The appellant admitted that he had consumed alcohol the evening of his
arrest. He also admitted he had taken two pain pills. The arresting officer
testified that the appellant failed three field sobriety tests and refused to take a
chemical test. Furthermore, at trial, the state presented a videotape of the stop
and arrest. The jury was able to view the tape and determine for themselves
whether the appellant passed or failed the field sobriety tests. A rational jury
-3-
could, and indeed did, find the appellant guilty of DUI. This issue is without
merit.
II
The appellant next contends that the trial court erred in setting a 50%
release eligibility date for his DUI conviction. He argues that considering the
mitigating factors in this case, he should have received a minimum sentence.
We disagree.
Although the appellant argues that due to mitigating factors he should
have received a minimum sentence, he fails to bring any evidence of mitigation
to the attention of this Court. Upon review of the record, we find that none
exists. The appellant's presentence report did reveal that he had an extensive
criminal history.2 We find nothing in the record to suggest that the appellant was
improperly sentenced. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
After considering the appellant's issues, we find no error of law mandating
reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
__________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge
2
Th e pre sen tenc e rep ort rev eals th at the app ellant h ad b een arreste d an d/or co nvicte d of o ver 3 0 differe nt crim es.
His past offenses include fraud, possession of a weapon, possession of a controlled substance, shoplifting, theft, assault on
an officer, vandalism, public intoxication, felony escape, introducing drugs into jail, DUI, disorderly conduct, parole violations,
disturb ing the pea ce, a nd m any o ther crim es. T he trial ju dge eve n rem arke d tha t bec aus e the app ellant’s p rior reco rd
consumed so many pages, by the time the appellant is as old as the judge and continues this criminal activity, “the computer
will run o ut of sp ace [to list the] c harg es....” T he a ppe llant w as 3 2 yea rs old a t sen tenc ing.
-4-
CONCUR:
___________________________
GARY R. WADE, Judge
___________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
-5-