ÿWPC …U.V %„bŠŽn­ž 0(Kw@s4³ 0lÇ 0D3 w 0J 0TÉ 0^ 0h{ 0rã 0|U 0†Ñ 0W 1uç 0d\ BÀ B)Ý D3DC9U*| 0@¦ AMæÞ3fiwtàÌTv~ vÓž AOqÆÀ 0D† D/Ê Bù<þ6X9`(CourierX ù3|x4«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡ "V#D$%D&'D()D*D+Ó€Ô¡¨ ((3Þ$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d% Line 7 d""""'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÔÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌMay€21,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ _Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€,ÔOfficer€Troy€Hall€of€the€Manchester€Police€Department€testifiedÏHeroes€and€Friends€has€two€doors€accessible€to€the€public.€€One€is€located€onÏthe€front€of€the€building€and€the€other€is€located€on€the€north€side€of€the€building.€ÏOfficer€Hall€also€testified€there€are€parking€lots€on€the€north€and€south€sides€ofÏthe€building,€which€members€of€the€public€use€when€patronizing€Heroes€andÏFriends.€Ì jÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€,ÔAppellant€was€also€charged€with€and€convicted€of€violation€of€theÏimplied€consent€statute,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406.€€He€has€not€appealedÏthis€conviction.Ì ÂÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€,ÔOur€interpretation€of€the€statute€takes€into€consideration€theÏ"obvious€statutory€aim"€of€"enabling€the€drunken€driver€to€be€apprehendedÏbefore€he€maims€or€kills€himself€or€someone€else[.]"€€òòState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€761,€765€(Tenn.€1993).ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑò òœÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€./+A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à0 à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.01CO1„9605„CC„00225Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCoffee€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òFRANKIE€HILL,€€€à àó óà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Gerald€L.ÏEwell,€Sr.,Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 à)à0 àJudge€à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(DUI€Second€Offense)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌROBERT€S.€PETERSà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSwafford,€Peters€&€Priestà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ100€First€Avenue,€S.W.ÌWinchester,€TN€€37398à àà àà àà àMARK€H.€CHENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCivil€Rights€&€Claims€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à404€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àSte.€2000Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0488ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€MICHAEL€LAYNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSTEPHEN€E.€WEITZMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÍGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€37355Ìà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€0ÑÇÑ7€BXXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àAppellant,€Frankie€Hill,€appeals€his€conviction€of€driving€whileÏintoxicated€second€offense.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€appellant's€sole€issue€isÏwhether€the€evidence€presented€at€his€jury€trial€in€Coffee€County€Circuit€CourtÏwas€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€support€his€conviction.€€Upon€review€of€theÏrecord€before€us,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€conviction€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€23,€1995,€appellant€left€work€around€10:00€p.m.€andÏwent€to€Heroes€and€Friends,€an€establishment€in€Manchester.€€While€at€HeroesÏand€Friends,€he€ate€"hot€wings"€and€"drank€probably€two€beers."€€Thereafter,Ïappellant€left€the€building€and€went€to€his€car,€which€was€parked€"by€the€door."œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€ÏHe€backed€out€of€his€parking€space€and€drove€behind€the€building€onto€aÏdriveway€that€connects€the€north€and€south€parking€lots€of€Heroes€and€Friends.€ÏAppellant€could€not€complete€his€drive€around€the€back€of€the€building€becauseÏtwo€Manchester€Police€Officers€were€blocking€the€drive€while€they€wereÏinspecting€a€van€parked€on€the€drive.€€Appellant€testified€he€knew€the€owners€ofÏthe€van€and€approached€Officer€Hall€to€find€out€what€he€and€Officer€HendrixÍwere€doing.€€After€talking€with€appellant,€Officer€Hall€requested€he€perform€twoÏfield€sobriety€tests,€which€appellant€declined€to€do.€€Appellant€told€Officer€HallÏhe€would€prefer€to€go€"downtown,"€at€which€point€Hall€placed€appellant€underÏarrest€for€driving€while€intoxicated.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›€€The€exchange€between€Officer€Hall€andÏappellant€was€captured€on€videotape€by€a€video€camera€mounted€in€Hall'sÏpatrol€car.€€This€video€was€admitted€into€evidence€at€trial€and€viewed€by€the€jury.ÌÌà àà àAgainst€this€factual€background,€appellant€contends€the€evidenceÏis€not€sufficient€to€support€his€conviction€of€driving€while€intoxicated€secondÏoffense€because€he€did€not€operate€a€motor€vehicle€in€an€area€"generallyÏfrequented€by€the€public€at€large,"€€an€essential€element€of€the€charged€crime.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)€œ(1993).›€€The€appellant€does€not€disputeÏthe€finding€that€he€was€intoxicated€for€purposes€of€Code€œSection€55„10„401.›€€ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€it€is€not€the€functionÏof€this€appellate€court€to€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€we€may€not€substitute€ourÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€ÍòòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(Tenn.€1956),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.€Ct.€39€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€we€are€required€toÏafford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord,€along€with€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€beÏdrawn€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.ÌÌà àà àIssues€of€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏafforded€the€evidence,€and€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏproperly€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€verdict€ofÏguilty€rendered€by€a€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€œin›€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÏstate.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocenceÏand€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€On€theÏdefendant's€appeal€to€this€court,€he€has€the€burden€of€showing€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€rendered€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.ÏTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdictÏof€guilt€unless€the€facts€of€record€and€all€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawnÏtherefrom€are€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€theÍdefendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòTuggleóó,Ï639€S.W.2d€at€914.ÌÌà àà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€state,€we€are€unable€to€agree€with€appellant€that€the€evidence€is€notÏsufficient€to€support€his€conviction.€€Notwithstanding€appellant's€contention€heÏdid€not€drive€his€car€in€an€area€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large,€òòseeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)€œ(1993),›€while€under€the€influence€of€anÏintoxicant,€we€find€ample€evidence€supporting€this€finding.€€In€his€own€testimony,Ïappellant€admits€he€drove€from€his€parking€place€"by€the€door"€to€the€drive€in€theÏback€of€the€building€and€along€the€drive€until€reaching€the€area€where€the€policeÏofficers€had€the€drive€blocked.€€Although€appellant€did€not€testify€whether€heÏparked€by€the€front€or€north€side€door,€it€is€patent€from€the€evidence€that€toÏaccess€the€driveway€behind€Heroes€and€Friends€he€would€have€to€drive€acrossÏone€of€the€establishment's€two€parking€lots.€€Officer€Hall€testified€he€sawÏappellant's€car€"come€through€the€back€portion€of€the€north€side€of€the€parkingÏlot"€into€the€driveway.€€Similarly,€Officer€Hendrix€testified€he€saw€appellantÏdriving€southward€on€the€driveway,€which€logically€indicates€appellant€hadÏcome€from€the€north€parking€lot.€€ÌÌà àà àAppellant€seeks€to€distinguish€between€the€parking€lot€and€theÏdriveway€by€œarguing›€the€driveway€was€not€an€area€generally€frequented€by€œthe€Ïpublic›€at€large,€and€therefore,€his€conviction€was€improper.€€What€appellant€failsÏœto€€address,›€however,€is€that€the€state's€evidence€overwhelmingly€supports€aÏfinding€that€appellant€drove€while€under€the€influence€in€the€north€òòparking€lotóó€ofÏHeroes€and€Friends,€which€is€clearly€an€area€generally€frequented€by€the€publicÏat€large.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Farris€John€Hunter,€IIIóó,€No.€01C01„9504„CC„00118Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€filed€1/17/96)€(DUI€conviction€where€defendantÏwas€apprehended€from€vehicle€in€liquor€store€parking€lot),€œòòaff'd€on€unrelatedÏissueóó,€____S.W.2d€____,€No.€01„S„01„9605„CC„00083€(Tenn.€at€Nashville,Ïfiled€3/24/97);òòState›€v.€Raymond€Carrollóó,€No.€02C01„9308„CC„00179€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€filed€9/27/95)€(car€wash€parking€lot);€òòState€v.€Tina€Wiggsóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9310„CC„00346€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€€filed€5/30/95)Ï(convenience€store€parking€lot),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó.ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€we€fail€to€find€merit€in€appellant's€argument€that€theÏdriveway€behind€Heroes€and€Friends€is€not€an€area€generally€frequented€byÏmembers€of€the€public€at€large.€€Appellant€urges€this€court€to€adopt€a€"totality€ofÏthe€circumstances"€approach€in€defining€such€an€area€and€says€the€drivewayÏbehind€Heroes€and€Friends€is€not€such€an€area.€€Although€we€find€itÍunnecessary€to€determine€the€propriety€of€a€totality€of€the€circumstancesÏapproach€based€on€our€finding€of€sufficient€convicting€evidence€discussedÏabove,€we€note€that€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€this€case€indicates€theÏdrive€behind€Heroes€and€Friends€is€an€area€generally€frequented€by€membersÏof€the€public€at€large.€€Both€police€officers€testified€to€their€frequent€observationsÏof€the€driveway€being€used€for€passage€from€one€parking€lot€to€the€other,€as€wellÏas€for€additional€parking.€€Appellant,€who€is€himself€a€member€of€the€public€atÏlarge,€admitted€he€often€parked€in€the€drive€so€he€would€not€have€to€worry€aboutÏpeople€"messing"€with€his€car.€€Appellant€further€admitted€other€individuals€parkÏbehind€Heroes€and€Friends€in€the€drive,€as€well,€and€he€is€not€always€able€toÏuse€the€drive€because€of€the€presence€of€these€other€cars.€€On€appellate€review,Ïthis€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€driveway€upon€whichÏappellant€admits€he€drove€his€car€is€an€area€generally€frequented€by€the€publicÏat€large€as€contemplated€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€œSection›€55„10„401(a).œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àFor€these€reasons,€we€find€the€evidence€of€record€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€appellant's€conviction€for€DUI€second€offense.€€Consequently,€theÍjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE