Patterson v. State

Full title: WESLEY LEE PATTERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

Date published: Jul 12, 2006

No. 12-05-00429-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 12, 2006)

Opinion

No. 12-05-00429-CR

Opinion delivered July 12, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the County Court at Law Henderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct. No. 04-0037CL).

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and Bass, Retired Justice, Twelfth Court of Appeals, TYLER, sitting by assignment.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BILL BASS, Justice.

A jury convicted Appellant of the offense of "Driving While Intoxicated — First Offense." The court assessed his punishment at confinement for 180 days, probated for two years, and a $1,000 fine. In one issue, Appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On the evening of August 19, 2003, Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Bryan Barnhart responded to a call to investigate a traffic accident on State Highway 198. He promptly arrived at the scene to find a three car collision. Two of the vehicles were still in the roadway, and Trooper Barnhart asked a sheriff's deputy who arrived at the crash site to direct traffic to keep the traffic moving on the highway. Trooper Barnhart determined that the lead car driven by a Ms. Pratt had stopped behind a vehicle waiting to make a left turn. The second car, driven by Appellant and registered in his name, collided with the rear of the Pratt car. A third vehicle quickly collided with Appellant's vehicle. Each of the drivers identified themselves. Appellant said he was the driver of the second car. The only passenger in any of the vehicles, Ms. Pratt's daughter, was taken by ambulance to a hospital in Athens. During his investigation, Trooper Barnhart detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage about Appellant. He also noticed that Appellant had difficulty understanding and following instructions and that he leaned on the patrol car for support. Appellant told Trooper Barnhart he had one beer an hour and a half before. Appellant failed several field sobriety tests. Trooper Barnhart determined Appellant was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. During the trip to jail with Trooper Barnhart, Appellant became increasingly hostile, profane, and threatening. On arrival at the jail, Appellant refused to sign the statutory warning required before a suspect is asked to give a breath or blood sample. He refused an intoxilyzer test. At the scene, Appellant had refused to be sent to the hospital. But at the jail he started complaining of some pain, and he was taken to the hospital. Trooper Barnhart was the State's only witness. The State introduced two videotapes that showed much of what transpired at the accident scene and at the DWI testing area of the jail. On the video, Ms. Pratt, the driver of the first car, said that she saw Appellant's vehicle behind her before the accident and that she believed Appellant should have had time to stop before striking her vehicle. Appellant presented no evidence.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY

In his sole issue, Appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. Standard of Review The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); see also Johnson v. State , 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). In Zuniga v. State , 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004), the court of criminal appeals explained the factual sufficiency standard.

There is only one question to be answered in a factual-sufficiency review: Considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? However, there are two ways in which the evidence may be insufficient. First, when considered by itself, evidence supporting the verdict may be too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, there may be both evidence supporting the verdict and evidence contrary to the verdict. Weighing all the evidence under this balancing scale, the contrary evidence may be strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met, so [that] the guilty verdict should not stand. This standard acknowledges that evidence of guilt can "preponderate" in favor of conviction but still be insufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, evidence supporting guilt can "outweigh" the contrary proof and still be factually insufficient under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

Id. at 484-85. Applicable Law In order to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated, the State must show that Appellant (1) drove or operated a motor vehicle (2) while intoxicated (3) in a public place. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 49.04 (Vernon 2003). An accused's extrajudicial confession cannot, by itself, establish the essential elements of the offense. Weaver v. State , 721 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd); see also Self v. State , 513 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (proof of the corpus delicti may not be made by an extrajudicial confession alone). If there is evidence corroborating the extrajudicial statement, the extrajudicial statement can be used with the other evidence to establish the corpus delicti. Fisher v. State , 851 S.W.2d 298, 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). The corroborating evidence need not be sufficient in itself to prove the offense charged. Self , 513 S.W.2d at 835. The evidence is sufficient if the corroborating evidence joined with the extrajudicial statement permits a rational finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Folk v. State , 797 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex.App.-Austin 1990, pet. ref'd). Evidence that a defendant was intoxicated at the time the officers arrived at the scene of an automobile accident is insufficient to support a driving while intoxicated conviction, absent evidence that the defendant was intoxicated at the time he was driving. Coleman v. State , 704 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd). To sustain a conviction for this offense, there must be evidence linking the time of the accident with the time of intoxication. Id. Discussion Appellant first argues that there is no evidence corroborating his extrajudicial admission to Trooper Barnhart that he was the driver of one of the vehicles in the accident. He contends that in the absence of evidence corroborating that extrajudicial admission, the State has failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense of driving while intoxicated. We disagree. Trooper Barnhart identified the drivers and occupants of all three cars involved. There is no evidence that there was another occupant of Appellant's vehicle. The vehicle was registered in his name. No companion appeared on the videotape. Appellant was apparently intoxicated at the scene. His complaints of pain are further proof of his involvement in the collision. There is sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti of the offense. Appellant next contends there is insufficient evidence to establish that he was intoxicated at the time he was driving. Appellant emphasizes that the State presented no evidence of when the accident occurred. He argues that there is therefore no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time he was driving. Trooper Barnhart arrived at the scene within a minute of receiving the report of the accident. Traffic was still backed up down Highway 198. Appellant refused to be taken to the hospital, but Ms. Pratt's daughter was sent to the Athens hospital by ambulance. Because this was an accident involving injuries, it may be reasonably inferred that it was reported quickly after it occurred. The traffic congestion still present when Trooper Barnhart arrived reinforces that inference. There is no evidence that might indicate Appellant started drinking after the accident. There is no evidence that alcoholic beverages or their empty containers were found in Appellant's vehicle. Appellant admitted he had consumed one beer "an hour and a half ago." He refused the intoxilyzer test. He failed all the field sobriety tests Trooper Barnhart administered. He needed to lean on the patrol car for balance. He had difficulty in understanding and following Trooper Barnhart's instructions. After his arrest, he became hostile, profane, and threatening. This evidence provides ample support for the State's contention that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he was driving.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that measured against the appropriate standards of review, the evidence supporting Appellant's conviction is both legally and factually sufficient. Appellant's sole issue is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW of HENDERSON COUNTY, GREETING: Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 12th day of June, 2006, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

WESLEY LEE PATTERSON, Appellant NO. 12-05-00429-CR; Trial Court No. 04-0037CL Opinion by Bill Bass, Justice. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words: "THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance." WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the ______ day of __________________, 200____. CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_______________________________ Deputy Clerk