WPC Y>EG)CTتg*HrM pC*ՊӣٺEYQ%V (#Z$q^meIM 5c;b!mz×!ݑ^1mfRxx7D%$>l:5$uدVaOקHzeW,v2^psJO[VD}4,~;n. k2sk2uC$~?FFP1 ϊS3RNdF?vO5'a'|B31ׂ.l_R6*$3Ё$ l4hUșA11C_IfOT;l0UDBNrEl!]*zX:A۶Q=;p|T,88=1 |D8)~׀k|/wt|$x |E7t Vy r6VR_x}+BCH:Gd._8mZgO]dUNx % 0(U:w.42FU #!   N3 ^ 5 A mC C 6Z U: D5 B 0D AQ` 0Dw 0D(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial RegulartpO'|xDriving Under the Influence   5 ' IB012R120IB012R12 .   HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0      'L U , b"  _X XXX_XX    Ad FILEDX X_  December28,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,  AZ"Arial RegularZZZZ)!dxdx d(3$ !  ab]cYC<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _X XXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T_@  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @FF'ATNASHVILLE{`YE51j~  `@EZ tt P`| C {@NN#OCTOBER1999SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @-)   @-) p NO.M199800259CCAR3CD     ` Appellee,@-) p @-) p DAVIDSONCOUNTY  V  VS. @-) B @-) p HON.FRANKG.CLEMENT,JR., .~ WILLIAMM.NEELY, @-) p JUDGE  j @-) ` Appellant.@-) p (DrivingUndertheInfluence) < (  @(#(#( FORTHEAPPELLANT:  SAMWALLACE,SR. 227SecondAvenueNorth H 2ndFloorNashville,TN37201 !d  FORTHEAPPELLEE:  PAULG.SUMMERS  \! AttorneyGeneralandReporter CLINTONJ.MORGAN  !d$ AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 VICTORS.JOHNSONIII  ~&!* DistrictAttorneyGeneral EDWARDS.RYAN 6)$- COLINCARNAHAN  "*r%. Asst.DistrictAttorneysGeneral2222ndAvenueNorthWashingtonSquare,Suite500Nashville,TN372011649 -)2 (  @( /*2  OPINIONFILED:򀀀 4@08 AFFIRMED d;6? JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE   _ 8gXXdd8   r P@qq* OPINION    ` ADavidsonCountyjuryconvicteddefendantofdrivingundertheinfluence T (DUI.)Thesoleissueinthisappealasofrightissufficiencyoftheconvicting  p evidence.Uponourreviewoftherecord,we AFFIRM thejudgmentofthetrial  < court.    @+ FACTS  (x  ` IntheearlymorninghoursofMay27,1997,MetroPoliceOfficerArthur  MessmerdiscovereddefendantinthedriversseatofaDodgeminivaninaWaffle  Houserestaurantparkinglot.Defendantappearedtobeasleepandhadhalfa d bottleofbeerbetweenhislegs.OfficerMessmerreachedthroughthevansopen 0 window,removedthekeysfromtheignitionandplacedthemontopofthevehicle. L Whentheofficerfinallysucceededinawakeningdefendant,defendantimmediately  reachedfortheignitionandtriedtostartthevan. !   ` OfficerMessmersmelledthestrongodorofalcohol,anddefendantsspeech ,%| $ wasslurred.Exitingthevan,defendantmovedslowlyanddeliberately,havingto &H"& leanonthevanforsupport.Atonepoint,OfficerMessmerassisteddefendantto ($( ensurehedidnotfalldown. *%*  ` DefendantfailedtwofieldsobrietytestsadministeredbyOfficerMessmer, (.x). andrefusedabloodalcoholtestatthepolicestation.Inresponsetoaninquiry /D+0 abouthowmanydrinksheconsumed,defendantstated, thestandardansweris 1-2 two,soIguessIvehadtwo. 3.4  ` Defendantofferednoproofattrial. $7t28  8@4: @  SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE    ` Defendantchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidenceinthiscase. T Specifically,defendantclaimsthatthestatefailedtocarryitsburdenofproofby  p failingtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthevaninwhichhewasasleepwas  < operationalatthetimeofhisarrest.     ` AdefendantisguiltyofDUIifhedrivesorisinphysicalcontrolofan P  automobilewhileonanypremises generallyfrequentedbythepublicatlarge, l whileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.55-10-401(a)(1). 8 Guiltofthisoffensemaybeprovencircumstantially.Statev.Harless,607S.W.2d  492,493(Tenn.Crim.App.1980).  @" A.StandardofReview  l  ` InTennessee,greatweightisgiventotheresultreachedbythejuryina D criminaltrial.Ajuryverdictaccreditsthestateswitnessesandresolvesallconflicts  infavorofthestate.Statev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d797,803(Tenn.1994);Statev. !  Harris,839S.W.2d54,75(Tenn.1992).Onappeal,thestateisentitledtothe X#" strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferenceswhichmay $%t $ bedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978). &@"& Moreover,aguiltyverdictremovesthepresumptionofinnocencewhichthe ( $( appellantenjoyedattrialandraisesapresumptionofguiltonappeal.Statev. *%* Grace,493S.W.2d474,476(Tenn.1973).Theappellanthastheburdenof T,', overcomingthispresumptionofguilt.Id.  .p).  ` Althoughtheevidenceofthedefendantsguiltiscircumstantialinnature, 1 -2 circumstantialevidencealonemaybesufficienttosupportaconviction.Statev. 3.4 Tharpe,726S.W.2d896,899900(Tenn.1987);Statev.Gregory,862S.W.2d T506 574,577(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Buttrey,756S.W.2d718,721(Tenn.  7p28 Crim.App.1988).However,inorderforthistooccur,thecircumstantialevidence 8<4:  P       mustbenotonlyconsistentwiththeguiltoftheaccusedbutitmustalsobe  inconsistentwithinnocenceandmustexcludeeveryotherreasonabletheoryor | hypothesisexceptthatofguilt.Tharpe,726S.W.2dat900.Inaddition, itmust H establishsuchacertaintyofguiltoftheaccusedastoconvincethemindbeyond  d areasonabledoubtthat[thedefendant]istheonewhocommittedthecrime.  0 Tharpe,726S.W.2dat900(quotingPruittv.State,460S.W.2d385,391(Tenn.    Crim.App.1970)). x   ` Whilefollowingtheaboveguidelines,thisCourtmustrememberthatthejury ` decidestheweighttobegiventocircumstantialevidenceandthat [t]heinferences , tobedrawnfromsuchevidence,andtheextenttowhichthecircumstancesare  consistentwithguiltandinconsistentwithinnocencearequestionsprimarilyforthe t jury.Marablev.State,313S.W.2d451,457(Tenn.1958);seealsoStatev. @ Gregory,862S.W.2d574,577(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Coury,697 ` S.W.2d373,377(Tenn.Crim.App.1985);Pruittv.State,460S.W.2dat391. , @' B.Analysis  t!   ` InStatev.Lawrence,theTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedatotalityofthe L#" circumstancesapproachtoassesswhetheranaccusedwasinphysicalcontrolof %h $ anautomobileforpurposesoftheDUIstatute.849S.W.2d761,765(Tenn.1993). &4"& TheLawrencecourtfoundthatthejurymayconsiderallcircumstancessurrounding ($( anoffenseindeterminingwhetheradefendantisincontrolofanautomobilefor *%* purposesoftheDUIstatute,andascircumstantialevidencethatdefendantactually L,', drovethevehicle.Id.Suchcircumstancesmayinclude thelocationofthe .h). defendantinrelationtothevehicle,thewhereaboutsoftheignitionkey,...the /8+0 defendantsability,butforhisintoxication,todirecttheuseornonuseofthe 1-2 vehicle,ortheextenttowhichthevehicleitselfiscapableofbeingoperatedor 3.4 moved.Id. L506   7l28  ` Inthisinstance,theproofshowedthataMetroPoliceofficerfounddefendant   asleepbehindthewheelofaminivanwithhalfabottleofbeerinhislap.Upon | awakening,defendantimmediatelyattemptedtostartthevehicle.Hefailedtwo H fieldsobrietytestsandrefusedabreathalcoholtest.  d  ` Defendantarguesthat,inadditiontoshowingcontrolofavehicleinan    intoxicatedstate,theprosecutionmustalsoprovethatthevehiclewasoperableat x  thetime.SeeStatev.Carter,889S.W.2d231(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(reversing D  DUIconvictionwheretherewasaffirmativeproofthatthevehiclewasinoperableat d thetimeofdefendantsarrest).However,unliketheCartercase,heretherewasno 0 prooftosuggestthatthevanwasinoperable.Thus,thejurycouldreasonablyinfer  thatthevanwasoperable. x  ` Underthe totalityofthecircumstancesapproachadoptedbythecourtin ` Lawrence,thejuryclearlyhadsufficientevidencefromwhichtoreasonablyinfer , thatthevanwas,indeed,operableandthatdefendantwasinphysicalcontrolofit  whileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant. t!  @xx( CONCLUSION  &("&  ` Basedupontheforegoing,weAFFIRMthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. |*%*   .d).  r       /(#____________________________ b  `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  H  CONCUR:  6  ____________________________    THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE v   ____________________________  &v JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE