ÿWPC; 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9baw@i4©½ 0CÌ 0D 0@S 0l“U@ÿ 0J? 0T‰ 0^Ý 0h;Æ£ 0ri 0|Û AQW 0D¨ 0†ì 0r 1u 0dw BÛ D3ø U>+ D/i U *˜ B B)ß DC AMK e˜  ™ F¤v~êvÓh˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- vwDxyz{|}~Ó€äzz!ÔôB3|x(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô (Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman**'÷ÿ dxd< Œ 9p`(ArialüÿP Pd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ "ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ€)ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔó óÌò òÔ€)¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ. ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€)XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€)ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔ€€€€à0 à€Ú  ÚÚ  Ú€€€Considering€that€the€maximum€total€sentence€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€55„10„403(a)(1)€is€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€it€is€logical€to€interpret€the€trialÏcourt's€sentence€as€meaning€a€total€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€with€120Ïdays€of€of€the€sentence€served€in€the€county€workhouse€and€the€balance€served€on€probation.€Ô€)XÔÔ€'ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€FgXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJUNE€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9508„CR„00214ÌÙ€ÙßR€-/,A1-j|é¤â `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€L.€T.€LAFFERTYó óÌò òSTANLEY€MATHEWS,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€Appeal)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBRETT€B.€STEINà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ236€Adams€Avenueà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHELLE€L.€LEHMANNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKEVIN€R.€RARDINÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€)°ÔOPINIONÔ€)ŠÔÌó óóóÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àA€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€jury€convicted€Appellant€StanleyÏMathews€of€driving€under€the€influence.€€According€to€the€record,€Appellant,€as€aÏthird€offender,€received€a€sentence€of€seven€months.€€The€trial€court€ordered€himÏto€serve€120€days€of€the€sentence€followed€by€probation€for€a€period€of€elevenÏmonths€and€twenty„nine€days.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€In€this€appeal,€Appellant€presents€theÏfollowing€issue:€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€sufficient€toÏsustain€a€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence.€ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà àò òI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÓ  Óà àó óAs€accredited€by€the€jury'sÏverdict,€the€State's€proof€shows€that,€on€November€15,€1993,€Officer€Mark€MillerÏof€the€Memphis€Police€Department€observed€two€vehicles€following€each€otherÏinto€the€Amoco€gas€station€on€Pendleton€Avenue€in€Memphis.€€Officer€Miller€didÏnot€notice€anything€unusual€about€either€car€but€followed€them€into€the€gasÏstation€because€he€needed€to€use€the€phone.€€Officer€Miller€observed€theÍoccupants€of€the€vehicles€exit€their€cars.€€Appellant€exited€the€first€vehicle€fromÏthe€driver's€seat.€€An€argument€ensued€between€the€occupants€of€the€twoÏvehicles.€€Upon€observing€this€argument,€Officer€Miller€approached€theÏpassengers€and€ordered€them€back€into€their€cars.€€The€occupants€of€theÏsecond€car€obeyed,€but€Appellant€and€Eric€Porter,€a€passenger€in€AppellantððsÏvehicle,€refused.€€Appellant€then€turned€to€Officer€Miller€and€began€arguing€withÏhim.€€At€this€time,€Officer€Miller€noticed€that€Appellant€smelled€of€an€intoxicant,Ïslurred€his€speech,€was€unsteady€on€his€feet,€and€was€irate€and€belligerent.€ÏAs€a€result,€Officer€Miller€attempted€to€pat€down€Appellant.€€In€response,ÏAppellant€struggled,€resulting€in€Officer€Miller€spraying€the€defendant€with€aÏchemical€agent.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€Appellant's€belligerent€behavior,€Officer€Miller€was€unable€toÏadminister€a€field€sobriety€test.€€Appellant€also€refused€to€take€a€breathalyserÏtest.€€Nevertheless,€Officer€Miller€concluded€that€Appellant's€driving€abilities€wereÏimpaired€by€alcohol.€€€ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Appellant€presented€a€completely€contrary€version€of€the€events.€ÏAppellant,€his€girlfriend€Shevette€Swanigan,€and€Porter€all€testified€that€AppellantÏdrank€three€to€four€quarts€of€beer€over€a€two€to€three€hour€period€after€playingÏbasketball€but€that€Appellant€never€drove€the€vehicle.€€According€to€Appellant'sÍversion€of€the€incident,€Swanigan€picked€him€and€Porter€up€from€playingÏbasketball,€and€they€drove€to€the€gas€station€when€their€car€malfunctioned.€ÏWhile€at€the€gas€station,€Porter€and€Appellant€got€into€an€argument€with€theÏcashier's€brother.€€Officer€Miller€did€not€arrive€on€the€scene€until€after€theÏargument.€€Before€Appellant€could€explain€what€had€occurred,€Officer€MillerÏsprayed€him€with€mace.ÌÌÑ H Ñà àAs€a€result€of€the€incident,€Appellant€was€indicted€for€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant,€reckless€driving,€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€TheÏjury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence€but€not€guilty€of€recklessÏdriving€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àà àò òII.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€legally€insufficientÏto€sustain€a€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence.€€In€support€of€hisÏsufficiency€claim,€Appellant€argues€that€he€was€not€driving€the€vehicle.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standardÏof€review€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏState,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,318Ï(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190„91€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert€deniedóó,€114ÍS.Ct.€740€(1994);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€toÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimateÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏ832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€re„evaluate€theÏevidence,€or€substitute€its€evidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€ÏòòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€As€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏTennessee€said€in€òòBolin€v.€Stateóó:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThis€well„settled€rule€rests€on€a€sound€foundation.€€TheÏtrial€judge€and€the€jury€see€the€witnesses€face„to„face,Ïhear€their€testimony€and€observe€their€demeanor€on€theÏstand.€€Thus€the€trial€judge€and€jury€are€the€primaryÏinstrumentality€of€justice€to€determine€the€weight€andÏcredibility€to€be€given€to€the€testimony€of€witnesses.€In€theÏtrial€forum€alone€is€there€human€atmosphere€and€theÏtotality€of€the€evidence€cannot€be€reproduced€with€aÏwritten€record€in€this€Court.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌ405€S.W.2d€768,€771€(1966).€€Thus,€a€jury€verdict€is€entitled€to€great€weight.ÌÌà àOnce€approved€by€the€trial€court,€a€jury€verdict€accredits€the€witnessesÏpresented€by€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.ÏHatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Townsendóó,€525€S.W.2dÏ842,€843€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€givenÏtheir€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€mattersÏentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2dÏ542,€547€(Tenn.€1984).€€A€jury's€guilt€verdict€removes€the€presumption€ofÍinnocence€enjoyed€by€the€defendant€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt.€ÏòòState€v.óó€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€defendant€then€bearsÏthe€burden€of€overcoming€this€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àIn€order€to€sustain€Appellant's€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence,€theÏproof€must€show€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€was€driving€or€hadÏphysical€control€of€the€vehicle€on€a€public€road€and€that€Appellant€was€underÏthe€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a).€€OfficerÏMiller€testified€that€he€observed€Appellant€drive€down€Pendleton€Avenue€andÏpull€into€the€Amoco€station.€€Officer€Miller€further€testified€that€Appellant€smelled€ofÏalcohol,€had€slurred€speech,€was€unsteady€on€his€feet,€and€was€very€irate€andÏbelligerent.€€In€addition,€Appellant€himself,€testified€that€he€had€consumed€three€toÏfour€quarts€of€beer€in€the€two€to€three€hour€period€before€his€arrest.ÌÌà àAs€stated€previously,€determining€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony€as€well€as€resolving€conflicts€in€the€proof€areÏmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€trier€of€fact.€€òòSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€atÏ547.€€This€Court,€even€if€it€wished€to€do€so,€may€not€substitute€its€evidentiaryÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€jury.€€òòCareyóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€95.€€Here,€itÏappears€from€the€verdict€that€the€jury€chose€to€believe€the€testimony€of€OfficerÏMiller€regarding€the€incident€and€to€disbelieve€Appellant's€account.€€Under€well„settled€Tennessee€law,€the€jury€was€within€its€province€in€doing€so.€€Thus,€weÏfind€that,€when€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€isÏlegally€sufficient€to€sustain€Appellantððs€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence.Ìà@ àò òIII.€INCONSISTENT€VERDICTSó óÌà àAppellant€also€claims€that€the€jury€verdicts€are€inconsistent,€and€thus€hisÏconviction€should€be€overturned.€€Appellant€argues€that,€if€a€jury€found€him€guiltyÏof€driving€under€the€influence,€then€the€jury€had€to€reach€the€conclusion€that€heÏwas€the€driver€of€the€car.€€If€Appellant€was€the€driver€of€the€car,€then€it€wouldÏnecessarily€follow€that€he€was€guilty€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€becauseÏthere€was€no€dispute€that€his€license€was€revoked.€€However,€the€jury€returnedÏa€guilty€verdict€with€respect€to€the€driving€under€the€influence€charge€and€a€not„guilty€verdict€with€respect€to€the€driving€on€a€revoked€license€charge.Ô€)ôÔ€€Ô€)ŠÔAssumingÏòòarguendoóó€that€the€verdicts€are€inconsistent,€our€Supreme€Court€has€held€thatÏ"[t]his€Court€will€not€upset€a€seemingly€inconsistent€verdict€by€speculating€as€toÏthe€jury's€reasoning€if€we€are€satisfied€that€the€evidence€establishes€guilt€of€theÏoffense€upon€which€the€conviction€was€returned."€€òòWiggins€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2dÏ92,€94€(Tenn.€1973);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€No.€02C01„9503„CC„00092,Ï1996€WL€315821,€at€*4€n.7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€10,€1996);€òòState€v.€Hunteróó,ÏNo.€01C01„9411„CC„00391,€1996€WL€10086,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€11,Ï1996),€òòapplicóó.€òòfiledóó,€(Tenn.€Aug.€1,€1996);€òòJackson€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€213,Ï216€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€Since,€as€discussed€above,€the€evidence€isÍsufficient€to€support€Appellant's€conviction,€Appellant's€argument€with€regard€toÏthis€issue€is€meritless.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgement€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€€€€€à àÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE