State v. Sean A. Taylor ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JANUARY 1999 SESSION
March 30, 1999
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9803-CR-00124
Appellee, )
) DAVIDSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR.,
SEAN ASHLEY TAYLOR, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Driving Under the Influence)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
KARL DEAN JOHN KNOX WALKUP
District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
HOLLIS I. MOORE, JR. DARYL J. BRAND
Asst. Public Defender Asst. Attorney General
1202 Stahlman Bldg. Cordell Hull Bldg., 2nd Fl.
Nashville, TN 37201 425 Fifth Ave., North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III
District Attorney General
EDWARD S. RYAN
Asst. District Attorney General
222 Second Ave., South
Nashville, TN 37201
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
JOHN H. PEAY,
Judge
OPINION
The Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of
driving under the influence, first offense. Following a trial, a jury convicted him of the
charged offense. Immediately following the verdict, the trial judge sentenced him to
eleven months, twenty-nine days with all but two days suspended and two hundred hours
of public service work. The trial judge also revoked the defendant’s driving privileges,
required that he attend an alcohol treatment program, and assessed a fine of three
hundred fifty dollars ($350). The defendant now appeals and argues that the evidence
was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is improper. After a
review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s arguments
and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In the early morning hours of February 11, 1995, Officer Hunsaker of the
Metropolitan Police Department was flagged down by an employee of the Classic Cat.
Officer Hunsaker went inside the club and found the defendant asleep at one of the
tables with a half-empty bottle of scotch in his lap. Officer Hunsaker shook the
defendant’s shoulder and after the defendant woke, asked him if he needed a ride home.
At this point, Officer Hunsaker noticed a “strong odor of alcohol” on the defendant and
that the defendant seemed uncoordinated. According to Officer Hunsaker, the defendant
said he did not need a ride because “he had someone coming to get him.” Officer
Hunsaker then left the club and went to his car. While in his car, Officer Hunsaker saw
the defendant walk out of the bar, get into his car, and drive away. Officer Hunsaker then
followed the defendant and observed that his car was “weaving in and out of the center-
turn lane.” Officer Hunsaker activated his emergency equipment at which point the
defendant made a wide left turn and hit the grass area located off of the shoulder of the
road. After the defendant came to a complete stop, Officer Hunsaker approached the
2
car. Officer Hunsaker testified that after he asked the defendant to step out of the car,
the defendant used the door to brace himself and get out of the car. According to Officer
Hunsaker, the defendant seemed disoriented, unsteady, and unresponsive. Additionally,
the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol.
Based upon his observations, Officer Hunsaker believed that the defendant was
intoxicated and asked the defendant to submit to a field alcohol test. The defendant
refused and was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. The defendant then
refused to submit to a breath-alcohol test. Upon arrival at the police station, the
defendant again refused to consent to a breath-alcohol test. The bottle of scotch the
defendant had in the bar was subsequently found in the defendant’s car.
As his first issue, the defendant contends that the verdict is not supported
by sufficient evidence. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the proof has the
burden of illustrating to this Court why the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict
returned by the trier of fact in his or her case. This Court will not disturb a verdict of guilt
for lack of sufficient evidence unless the facts contained in the record and any inferences
which may be drawn from the facts are insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier
of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Tuggle, 639
S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).
When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, we
must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution in determining
whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not
reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence and are required to afford the State the strongest
legitimate view of the proof contained in the record as well as all reasonable and
legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d
3832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to
be given to the evidence, as well as factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved
by the trier of fact, not this Court. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835. A guilty verdict
rendered by the jury and approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the
witnesses for the State, and a presumption of guilt replaces the presumption of
innocence. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973).
The defendant argues that his conviction rests entirely on the testimony of
Officer Hunsaker and, as Officer Hunsaker’s testimony was filled with inconsistencies,
the jury did not have sufficient evidence upon which to convict the defendant. The
defendant also complains the jury “refused to credit any of the defendant’s testimony.”
However, as previously stated, the credibility of the witnesses is determined by the trier
of fact, not this Court. The jury obviously believed Officer Hunsaker’s testimony over that
of the defendant. As this was entirely within the province of the jury, this contention is
without merit.
The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to
serve forty-eight hours in jail in addition to two hundred hours of public service work.
When a defendant complains of his or her sentence, we must conduct a de novo review
with a presumption of correctness. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d). The burden of showing that
the sentence is improper is upon the appealing party. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) Sentencing
Commission Comments. This presumption, however, “is conditioned upon the affirmative
showing in the record that the trial court considered the sentencing principles and all
relevant facts and circumstances.” State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).
4
The defendant argues that T.C.A. § 55-10-403(n) allows the trial judge to
sentence a defendant convicted of driving under the influence, first offense, to the
minimum period of confinement set out in subsection (a) or to two hundred hours of
public service work, but not both. However, the defendant fails to address T.C.A. § 55-
10-403(a)(1) which states,
After service of at least the minimum sentence day for day,
the judge has the discretion to require an individual convicted
of a violation of the provisions of §§ 55-10-401 - 55-10-404 to
remove litter from the state highway system, public playgrounds,
public parks or other appropriate locations for any prescribed
period or to work in a recycling center or other appropriate location
for any prescribed period of time in lieu of or in addition to any of
the penalties otherwise provided in this section . . . .
T.C.A. § 55-10-403(a)(1) (emphasis added). This statute gives the trial judge the
authority to sentence a defendant to public service work in addition to a period of
confinement. Such public service work can include the removal of litter from certain
areas or work in a recycling center or “other appropriate location.” This section also gives
the judge the authority to sentence a defendant to perform public service work “for any
prescribed period of time.”
Here, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to two hundred hours of
public service work. Under § 55-10-403(a), he had the statutory authority to do so while
simultaneously imposing a sentence of incarceration. Therefore, the defendant’s
contention is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
______________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
5
CONCUR:
______________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
______________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
6