State v. Sarah K. Madewell

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FEBRUARY SESSION, 1997 FILED
July 31, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
Appellate Court Clerk
) No. 01C01-9606-CC-00247
Appellee )
) PUTNAM COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. JOHN MADDUX, Judge
SARAH K. MADEWELL, )
) (DUI, Second Offense)
Appellant )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
H. MARSHALL JUDD CHARLES W. BURSON
Assistant Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
215 Reagan Street
Cookeville, TN 38501 GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
WILLIAM EDWARD GIBSON
District Attorney General
ANTHONY J. CRAIGHEAD
Asst. District Attorney General
145 S. Jefferson Avenue
Cookeville, TN 38501
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Sarah K. Madewell, appeals as of right from her conviction
for driving while under the influence, second offense. The appellant’s sole issue
is whether the evidence presented at her jury trial in the Putnam County Criminal
Court was sufficient as a matter of law to support her conviction.
After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to
Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.
The appellant, then a waitress at a restaurant in Cookeville, left work at
approximately 1:30 a.m. on the morning of February 19, 1995. She then drove
to the Five Oaks Club which is located in White County to socialize with friends.
The appellant testified that, between 2 a.m. and 3:30 a.m., she consumed two
beers. She then left to return to her home in Baxter. Apparently, missing her
turn, the appellant found herself in Algood. Detective Allen of the Algood Police
Department observed the appellant make a “real wide turn.” The officer followed
the appellant for approximately one-half mile. During that time, he observed the
appellant cross the double yellow line on the roadway about eight or nine times.
Once she swerved completely onto the opposite side of the roadway. Upon
reaching the parking lot of a supermarket, the officer proceeded to stop the
appellant’s vehicle. As he approached her car, he was able to detect a strong
odor of alcohol from within. Detective Allen noticed that she slurred her speech
and her eyes were “glassy.” The appellant admitted that she had consumed two
beers. He asked her to take three field sobriety tests; she failed two and refused
to perform one stating that she had a back injury which prevented her from
standing on one foot. The appellant was arrested and transported to the Putnam
County Jail. When the two arrived at the jail, the officer explained the implied
consent law to the appellant. She then signed the implied consent form and took
2
a blood alcohol test. The Intoximeter 3000 failed to perform properly during the
first three attempts, registering a .00. On the fourth attempt, at 5:16 a.m., the
appellant’s blood alcohol level registered as .10 per cent.
Following her conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months
and 29 days with all time suspended except for sixty days in the county jail. In
addition, the appellant was fined $500 plus court costs.
When reviewing a trial court’s judgment, the appellate court will not disturb
a verdict of guilt unless the facts of the record and inferences which may be
drawn from it are insufficient as a matter of law for a rational trier of fact to find
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); State v.
Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913,914 (Tenn. 1982). In other words, this court will not
reevaluate or reweigh the evidence brought out at trial. It is presumed that the
judge or jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable
inferences from the evidence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676
S.W.2d 542,547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn.
1978); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). Since a verdict of
guilt removes the presumption of a defendant’s innocence and replaces it with a
presumption of guilt, the defendant has the burden of proof on the sufficiency of
the evidence at the appellate level. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.
The elements of driving under the influence are: (1) driving or being in
physical control of a motor vehicle (2) upon a public thoroughfare while (3) under
the influence of an intoxicant or drug. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401 (1993 June
16, 1997 Repl.); State v. Ray, 563 S.W.2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
The offense of drunk driving may be established by circumstantial evidence.
State v. Gilbert, 751 S.W.2d 454, 459 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). In this case, the
appellant challenges only the finding that she was under the influence of an
3
intoxicant at the time of her arrest. Based upon careful consideration of the
evidence, the jury found that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol.
We agree. The evidence in the record before us amply supports the appellant’s
conviction for driving under the influence.
In conclusion, pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R., we hold that
the evidence is sufficient to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
and we, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
________________________________
GARY R. WADE, Judge
________________________________
CURWOOD WITT, Judge
4