ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]ëª B•v~²vÓ0 D3 0@6 AOvÆÅ 0D‹ D/Ï Bþ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ |}D~.e€D‚ƒD„…Ó€©U!3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctober€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€APPELLEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„C„01„9506„CC„00177Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBlount€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àD.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Driving€While€Under€theÏInfluence)ÌJOSEPH€A.€MILLS,€JR.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌNatalee€S.€Hurleyà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ419€High€Streetà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMaryville,€TN€37804à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àTimothy€F.€BehanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌR.€Mack€Garnerà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì419€High€StreetÌMaryville,€TN€37804à àà àà àà àMichael€L.€FlynnÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37804„5906ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPhillip€H.€MortonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€37804„5906ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€œAND›€REMANDEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÓ  Óò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÑ7€V6XXdìXXdì7ÑØØÙ  ÙÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Joseph€A.€Mills,€Jr.,€was€convicted€of€driving€while€under€theÏinfluence,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€It€is€not€clear€whether€theÏappellant€was€sentenced€for€a€second€or€third€offense.€€The€trial€court€imposed€aÏsentence€consisting€of€a€fine€in€the€amount€of€$1,350€and€confinement€for€elevenÏmonths€and€twenty„nine€days€in€the€Blount€County€Jail.€€The€trial€court€suspended€allÏbut€180€days€of€the€sentence€and€placed€the€appellant€on€probation€for€the€balance€ofÏthe€sentence.€€In€this€Court,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€his€conviction€and€the€sentence€imposed€is€excessive.€€After€a€thoroughÏreview€of€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€the€record,€and€the€authorities€that€controlÏthe€issues€presented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€appellantððsÏconviction€should€be€affirmed.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏdetermination€of€whether€the€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€second€or€third€offender.Ìà àOn€May€19,€1994,€at€approximately€8:00€p.m.,€a€Maryville€police€officer€saw€aÏpickup€truck€being€driven€in€a€reckless€manner.€€The€truck,€which€was€being€driven€atÏan€excessive€rate€of€speed,€would€pull€close€to€the€rear€of€another€vehicle€and€makeÏan€abrupt€lane€change.€€The€officer€pursued€the€truck.€€When€the€emergency€lights€onÏthe€patrol€car€were€activated,€the€truck€pulled€to€the€side€of€the€road.Ìà àThe€officer€went€to€the€truck€and€asked€the€appellant,€who€was€driving,€for€hisÏdriverððs€license.€€The€appellant€apparently€did€not€have€a€driverððs€license.€€He€fumbledÏwith€his€wallet€and€finally€gave€the€officer€a€State€of€Tennessee€employeeÏidentification€card.€€The€officer€immediately€noticed€a€strong€odor€of€an€intoxicatingÏbeverage.€€When€the€appellant€exited€the€truck,€he€was€unsteady€on€his€feet.€€HisÏspeech€was€slurred.€€He€failed€the€field€sobriety€tests€administered€by€the€officer.€€AnÏopen€can€of€beer€was€found€inside€the€truck.€€It€was€the€opinion€of€the€officer€that€theÏappellant€was€ð ðunder€the€influence,€he€was€intoxicated.ðð€€The€appellant€refused€toÏsubmit€to€a€blood€test€or€chemical€breath€test€to€determine€the€degree€of€hisÏintoxication.Ìà àThe€appellantððs€fiance€testified€that€she€was€eight€and€one„half€monthsÏpregnant.€€She€and€the€appellant€had€gone€to€the€lake€that€morning€to€fish.€€TheÏappellant€stopped€at€a€convenience€store€and€purchased€two€cans€of€beer.€€He€drankÏone€can€of€beer€at€the€lake.€€When€she€began€to€have€severe€pains,€which€she€thoughtÏwere€labor€pains,€they€loaded€the€vehicle€and€were€en€route€to€the€hospital€when€theyÏwere€stopped€by€the€officer.€€She€stated€that€the€appellant€had€just€opened€the€secondÏcan€of€beer€and€had€one€sip€before€he€was€stopped.€€The€officer€called€an€ambulanceÏto€ensure€her€safety.€€The€officer€testified€that€she€could€not€permit€the€appellant€to€takeÍhis€fiance€to€the€hospital€due€to€his€intoxication.€Ìà àThere€is€a€discrepancy€of€several€hours€between€the€testimony€of€the€officer€andÏthe€appellantððs€fiance.€€As€previously€stated,€the€officer€testified€that€she€stopped€theÏappellant€shortly€after€8:00€p.m.€€The€appellantððs€fiance€testified€that€they€left€the€lakeÏbetween€12:30€p.m.€and€1:00€p.m.€€This€would€have€placed€the€appellant€in€MaryvilleÏin€the€middle€of€the€afternoon.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€ð ðofficer€did€not€provide€adequate€evidence€thatÏthe€Appellant€was€intoxicated.ðð€€He€argues€that€ð ð[t]his€case€is€a€travesty€of€the€justiceÏsystemðð€and€this€case€ð ðabounded€with€reasonable€doubt€that€the€jury€simply€andÏobviously€chose€to€ignore.ððÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€isÏsufficient€ð ðto€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€directÏevidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÍinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€ð ðA€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ððÌà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trierÏof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€not€disturbÏa€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€theÏrecord€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€theÏaccused€€is€guilty€beyond€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ìà àThe€evidence€of€the€appellantððs€guilt€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€by€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€driving€under€the€influence€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99ÏS.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560,€573€(1979).€€The€state€established€that€theÍappellant€was€operating€a€motor€vehicle,€it€was€being€operated€on€a€public€roadway,Ïand€he€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€while€operating€the€vehicle.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€jury€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€officer€and€rejected€the€testimony€of€theÏappellantððs€fiance.€€The€jury€obviously€believed€the€officer€and€did€not€believe€theÏappellantððs€fiance.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€imposed€the€minimumÏsentence€for€the€offense€in€question.€€Based€upon€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€recordÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œðð€40„35„401(d),›€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€theÏsentence€imposed€was€proper.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€overcome€theÏpresumption€afforded€the€€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€appellant€has€a€history€of€criminal€convictions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€The€appellant€has€five€(5)€prior€convictions€for€driving€while€under€theÏinfluence.€€If€the€appellant€is€sentenced€as€a€third€offender,€there€are€two€remainingÏoffenses€that€can€be€used€to€enhance€his€sentence.€€€He€has€also€been€convicted€ofÏpublic€intoxication,€six€counts,€driving€while€license€revoked,€five€counts,€burglaryÏsecond€degree,€possession€of€marijuana,€petit€larceny,€criminal€trespass,€andÏdisrupting€a€meeting.€€He€has€previously€been€declared€a€habitual€motor€offender€andÏwas€convicted€of€violating€the€restraints€upon€his€operation€of€a€motor€vehicle.€€HeÏadmits€that€this€factor€was€established.Ìà àThe€appellant€admits€in€his€brief€that€he€has€a€previous€history€of€failing€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8).Ìà àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€appellant€had€no€hesitation€about€committingÏa€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(10).€€InÏthis€case,€the€appellantððs€intoxication€coupled€with€the€manner€in€which€he€was€drivingÏplaced€every€citizen€using€the€roadway€in€jeopardy€of€sustaining€serious€injury€orÏbeing€killed.€€This€was€a€proper€factor€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€in€determining€theÏlength€of€the€appellantððs€sentence.€€Based€upon€these€factors€and€the€additionalÏevidence€contained€in€the€record,€the€trial€court€also€properly€considered€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(16)€because€the€potential€for€injury€to€these€citizens€wasÏexceptional.Ìà àThe€appellant€lists€several€mitigating€factors€that€he€feels€should€have€beenÏapplied€by€the€trial€court.€€The€appellant€did€not€present€any€evidence€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€He€did€not€testify€during€the€trial.€€Consequently,€the€record€doesÏnot€support€these€factors.€€Assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€some€of€the€mitigating€factorsÏshould€have€been€applied,€the€manner€in€which€the€appellant€was€operating€his€motorÏvehicle€and€his€prior€history€of€criminal€convictions€would€far€outweigh€any€mitigatingÏfactors.Ìà àThis€Court€views€the€sentence€imposed€in€this€case€as€lenient€given€theÏappellantððs€prior€convictions,€the€length€of€the€previous€sentences,€and€the€failure€ofÏthe€appellant€to€rehabilitate€himself€when€released€into€the€community.€€It€is€obviousÏthat€the€appellant€has€absolutely€no€respect€for€the€laws€of€this€state.€€When€releasedÍfor€an€offense,€he€returned€to€the€community€and€committed€another€offense.Ìà àIn€this€case,€a€lengthy€confinement€is€necessary€to€protect€society.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(A).€€Confinement€is€also€required€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense€the€appellant€committed€as€well€as€to€deter€the€appellantÏand€others€from€engaging€in€like€or€similar€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(B).€€Also,€harsh€sentences€and€prior€releases€into€the€community€have€notÏcurbed€the€appellantððs€criminal€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1)(C).€€Finally,€Ïthe€appellant€is€beyond€the€stage€of€life€where€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€orÏtreatment€would€assist€either€the€appellant€or€society.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€€€€€Ìà àÌÓ  Óà àò òIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€order€accepting€the€plea€of€guilty€and€the€judgment€on€sentence€states€thatÏthe€appellant€was€being€sentenced€as€a€second€offender.€€However,€the€transcript€ofÏthe€sentencing€hearing€reveals€that€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€appellant€as€a€thirdÏoffender.€€The€appellant€was€indicted€as€a€third€offender.€€Two€prior€convictions€areÏalleged€in€the€indictment.Ìà àThe€appellant€did€not€object€to€being€sentenced€as€a€third€offender.€€Moreover,Ïthis€is€not€an€issue€in€this€Court.€€Both€parties€have€briefed€this€case€based€upon€aÏfinding€that€the€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€third€offender.Ìà àIt€is€a€well„established€rule€of€law€that€when€conflicts€appear€between€whatÏused€to€be€called€the€ð ðtechnical€recordðð€and€what€was€known€as€the€ð ðbill€ofÍexceptions,ðð€the€version€contained€in€the€bill€of€exceptions€prevailed.€€However,€it€isÏdoubtful€that€this€rule€should€be€applied€in€this€case.€€Today,€there€is€no€distinctionÏbetween€the€papers€filed€in€the€trial€court€and€the€transcription€of€the€proceedings.€ÏBoth€are€included€in€what€is€called€the€ð ðrecord.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€Supreme€Court€hasÏenacted€a€rule€that€makes€the€use€of€the€standard€judgment€form€mandatory€in€criminalÏcases.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€17.€€Thus,€this€document€is€an€integral€part€of€the€sentencingÏrecord.Ìà àThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€resolution€of€the€conflict€appearingÏin€the€record.€€If€the€appellant€was€properly€sentenced€as€a€second€offender,€theÏjudgment€is€correct.€€However,€if€the€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€third€offender€asÏthe€indictment,€transcript,€and€briefs€indicate,€the€trial€court€should€vacate€the€judgmentÏand€enter€an€amended€judgment€form€that€reflects€the€appellant€was€being€sentencedÏas€a€third€offender.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ____________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€PAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ