ÿWPCh 2UBÌ %U.BnXR 0Pª4ú 0” 0D¢w@æU:& ` 0Dfª 0J² 0Tü 0^P 0h® 0r 0|ˆ 0† 0Š 1u 0d AQó ÆD 0D 0@N BŽ D/« BÚ D3÷ B)* DCS AM– 4ã v~vÓ•<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi X%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xá«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó¸LË$(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÍÎDÏÐDÑÒ\eÓDÔUÕbÖÓ€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ18,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(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  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X Ñ›Ñ7€4XXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ќـ!ÙßR€./-A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9707„CC„00273ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àGREENE€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€BEN€K.€WEXLER,ÌRICKY€DALE€McNEESE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Driving€While€Under€the€Influence)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òEDWARD€KERSHAWà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó128€South€Main€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óSuite€102ò òÌó óGreeneville,€TN€37743à àà àà àò òà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Ave.,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCordell€Hull€Bldg.,€SecondÏFl.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àC.€BERKELEY€BELLó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àERIC€D.€CHRISTIANSENó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à109€South€Main€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€TN€37743Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ  Ñœ›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€Greene€County€grand€jury€indicted€the€defendant€on€one€count€ofÏdriving€while€under€the€influence.€€Following€a€trial,€a€jury€convicted€him€of€theÏcharged€offense.€€Immediately€following€the€verdict,€the€trial€judge€sentenced€him€toÏeleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€with€all€but€ten€days€suspended.€€The€defendantÏraises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓ1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€prevented€theÏdefendant€from€cross„examining€a€witness€about€variousÏlevels€of€intoxication€and€a€personððs€ability€to€driveÏeffectively.ÌÌ2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€intoÏevidence€a€bottle€of€medication€found€in€the€defendantððsÏtruck.ÌÌ3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€permitÏthe€jury€to€view€the€actual€vehicle€in€which€the€defendantÏhad€been€sitting€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.ÌÌ4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€theÏdefendantððs€request€for€a€special€jury€instruction.ÌÌ5.€€Whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏdefendantððs€conviction.ÌÌ6.€€Whether€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€excessive.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€courtÍbelow.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€27,€1996,€Greeneville€city€policeÏofficers€spotted€the€defendantððs€truck€sitting€in€the€gravel€lot€of€Universal€America,ÏInc.€€Auxiliary€Officer€Carl€Morgan€testified€that€after€he€spotted€the€truck,€he€and€hisÏpartner€pulled€next€to€it€to€find€out€whether€anything€was€wrong.€€Morgan€said€heÏfound€the€defendant€sitting€in€the€driverððs€seat€and€a€female€sitting€in€the€passengerÏseat.€€He€further€testified€that€the€truckððs€engine€was€running€and€its€lights€were€on.€ÏMorgan€said€the€defendant€had€spoken€in€a€slurred€voice€with€a€thick€tongue.€€TheÏdefendant€told€him€that€his€girlfriend€was€sick.ÌÌà àà àWhen€Morgan€asked€the€defendant€to€exit€the€truck,€the€defendantÏbegan€to€walk€in€an€unsteady€manner.€€Morgan€testified€that€he€had€smelled€alcoholÏon€the€defendant.€€Because€the€defendant€had€parked€in€a€gravel€area,€Morgan€andÏhis€fellow€officer€asked€the€defendant€to€move€to€a€smoother€surface€close€to€aÏnearby€building.€€Once€there,€the€defendant€agreed€to€perform€several€field€sobrietyÏtests.€€Morgan€testified€that€he€had€performed€ð ðpoorly.ððÌÌà àà àPat€Hankins,€Morganððs€fellow€officer,€actually€administered€the€tests.€ÍHe€told€the€court€that€the€defendantððs€speech€had€been€slurred€and€ð ðvery€mumbly.ðð€ÏHankins€first€asked€the€defendant€to€perform€the€ð ðwalk„and„turn€test.ðð€€The€defendantÏcould€not€keep€his€balance€while€doing€this€test€and€had€to€put€his€hands€on€theÏnearby€building€to€steady€himself.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€failed€to€take€theÏnumber€of€steps€as€instructed€and€he€missed€hitting€heel€to€toe€on€numerous€steps.€ÏThe€defendant€was€also€unable€to€keep€his€arms€at€his€side.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€second€test,€the€one„leg„stand,€the€defendant€was€unable€toÏhold€the€stance€for€the€required€five€seconds.€€He€put€his€leg€down€after€threeÏseconds€and€told€Hankins€that€he€had€a€bad€knee.€€However,€Hankins€testified€thatÏhe€had€earlier€asked€the€defendant€about€the€presence€of€any€physical€problemsÏand€the€defendant€made€no€comment€about€a€bad€knee.ÌÌà àà àAs€the€third€test,€the€defendant€was€asked€to€recite€the€alphabet.€ÏHankins€testified€that€the€defendant€had€ð ðstarted,€got€to€H,€started€over€again€at€E,Ïwent€to€R,€got€mixed€up,€then€he€started€saying€them€too€fast€.€.€.€.ðð€€Hankins€said€theÏdefendant€had€been€mumbling€so€that€he€could€not€determine€whether€the€defendantÏhad€finished€reciting€the€alphabet€or€not.€€The€defendant€was€also€unable€to€performÏthe€fourth€test,€the€finger„to„nose€test.€€He€was€unable€to€hit€the€tip€of€his€nose€on€bothÍattempts.€€From€these€tests,€Hankins€determined€that€the€defendant€was€impaired€byÏalcohol€and€that€he€was€not€capable€of€operating€a€vehicle.ÌÌà àà àHankins€further€testified€that€he€had€found€ð ða€collection€of€beer€cansðð€inÏthe€defendantððs€truck.€€He€found€one€empty€can€of€Busch€beer,€four€empty€BudweiserÏbottles,€one€empty€can€of€Budweiser,€two€cold€full€cans€of€Budweiser,€and€five€moreÏempty€cans€in€the€back€of€the€truck.€€Hankins€also€found€a€bottle€of€prescriptionÏmedicine€prescribed€for€the€defendant.€€The€bottle€contained€a€warning€label€thatÏsaid,€ð ðmay€cause€drowsiness.€€Alcohol€may€intense€[sic]€this€effect.€€Use€care€whenÏoperating€a€car€or€dangerous€machinery.ððÌÌà àà àAs€the€defendant€was€being€arrested,€his€brother€arrived€and€asked€ifÏhe€could€take€the€defendantððs€truck€home.€€Hankins€refused€his€request€and€had€theÏtruck€towed.€€Hankins€testified€that€the€defendant€had€never€said€he€had€beenÏwaiting€for€his€brother.€€The€officers€then€took€the€defendant€to€the€station€where€heÏconsented€to€a€breathalyser€test.€€The€test€showed€the€defendant€had€a€breathÏalcohol€concentration€of€fourteen€hundredths€of€one€percent€(.14%).€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€then€took€the€stand€and€testified€that€prior€to€his€arrest,Íhe€and€his€girlfriend€had€picked€up€a€six€pack€of€beer€and€had€gone€to€a€friendððsÏhouse.€€He€said€he€had€consumed€two€of€the€beers.€€Then€around€10:00€or€10:30Ïp.m.,€he€and€his€girlfriend€went€to€a€local€bar,€The€Hideaway.€€While€there,€theÏdefendant€had€two€more€beers€as€did€his€girlfriend.€€The€pair€left€the€bar€close€toÏmidnight.€€The€defendant€testified€that€as€they€had€been€leaving€the€bar,€his€girlfriendÏstepped€off€the€threshold€and€fell€and€hit€her€head.€€He€said€that€she€had€appeared€toÏbe€a€little€groggy€but€that€she€had€said€she€was€okay€to€drive€home.€€However,€theÏdefendant€said€that€it€became€apparent€that€the€girlfriend€was€not€alright€to€drive€andÏhe€had€her€pull€over€at€the€Estes€Trucking€Company€parking€lot.€€From€there,€theÏdefendant€drove€the€truck€across€the€street€to€a€gravel€lot.€€He€said€he€moved€theÏtruck€there€because€it€was€a€safe€place€to€park€and€no€one€was€ever€there.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€said€he€had€then€decided€to€sit€in€the€gravel€lot€and€waitÏfor€his€brother€who€gets€off€work€around€midnight€and€always€drives€by€this€particularÏspot.€€He€said€while€he€had€been€waiting,€he€drank€another€two€beers.€€He€testifiedÏthat€while€he€felt€he€could€have€driven€home,€he€did€not€because€it€would€have€beenÏð ðtoo€risky.ðð€€He€testified€that€ð ðthe€mere€smell€of€alcohol€on€your€breath€can€get€youÏinto€a€lot€of€trouble€in€this€town.ðð€€He€further€testified€that€the€truckððs€headlights€hadÏbeen€on€as€well€as€the€interior€lights.€€He€said€the€truck€had€a€quirk€in€that€the€interiorÍlights€would€not€work€unless€the€headlights€were€glowing.€€The€interior€lights€hadÏbeen€on€so€that€he€could€see€his€girlfriend.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€whenÏit€prohibited€the€defendant€from€questioning€Officer€Hankins€about€ð ðthe€variousÏpercent€of€intoxication€levels€at€which€persons€may€drive€effectively.ðð€€The€defendantÏcontends€that€such€questioning€was€ð ðhighly€relevant,€because€it€tends€to€show€thatÏthe€.10€percent€blood€alcohol€ratio€that€has€been€established€as€a€presumption€byÏour€law€is€just€that€ðða€presumptionðð€it€is€not€a€conclusion.ððÌÌà àà àDuring€the€cross„examination€of€Officer€Hankins,€defense€counselÏasked€Hankins€about€the€highest€reading€he€had€ever€seen€on€a€Breathalyser€test.€ÏCounsel€then€attempted€to€further€question€Hankins€about€the€condition€of€theÏperson€who€had€the€highest€reading.€€The€State€objected€on€grounds€of€materialityÏand€relevancy€and€the€objection€was€sustained.€€Defense€counsel€then€attempted€toÏask€Hankins€whether€different€people€with€the€same€Breathalyser€result€could€haveÏvarying€degrees€of€impairment.€€Again,€the€State€objected€and€the€trial€court€agreed.ÌÌà àà à€First,€evidence€is€considered€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€makeÍthe€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÏmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€401.€€Second,€the€scope€of€cross„examination€is€largely€within€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€and€that€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€finding€of€abuse.€€òòState€v.ÏLewisóó,€803€S.W.2d€260,€262€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Thus,€we€have€no€troubleÏconcluding€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€when€it€refused€to€allow€defense€counsel€toÏengage€in€the€questioning€outlined€above.€€The€questioning€had€no€tendency€toÏmake€any€fact€of€consequence€to€the€defendantððs€case€more€or€less€probable.€€It€wasÏcompletely€irrelevant€to€the€proceeding€and,€therefore,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretionÏon€behalf€of€the€trial€court.€€The€jury€had€already€heard€ample€evidence€of€how€thisÏdefendant€was€impaired.€€How€someone€other€than€the€defendant€may€have€acted€atÏa€similar€level€of€intoxication€has€no€place€in€this€trial.€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAs€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€admitted€into€evidence€a€bottle€of€medication€that€was€found€in€theÏdefendantððs€truck€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€He€contends€that€the€bottle€was€irrelevantÏand€prejudicial€because€the€jury€may€have€been€given€the€impression€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€mixing€alcohol€and€prescription€medication.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Officer€Hankins€testified€that€he€had€found€a€bottle€of€medicationÏin€the€defendantððs€car.€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€introduction€of€the€bottle€despiteÏthe€defendantððs€objections.€€The€trial€court€told€defense€counsel€that€this€issue€shouldÏhave€been€raised€earlier€and€overruled€the€objection.€€However,€the€trial€judge€toldÏdefense€counsel€that€he€would€be€allowed€a€wide€berth€in€cross„examining€theÏofficer.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€testified€that€while€the€bottle€had€been€in€his€car,Ïhe€had€not€taken€any€of€the€medication€on€that€night.€€From€this,€we€conclude€that€theÏerror,€if€any,€was€certainly€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€T.R.A.P.€36(b);ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏrefused€to€allow€the€jury€to€view€the€truck€that€he€had€been€driving€when€he€wasÏarrested.€€He€wanted€to€show€the€jury€that€in€order€to€operate€the€interior€lights€theÏheadlights€must€be€on€as€well.€€The€State€objected€because€of€the€ten€month€lapseÏbetween€the€defendantððs€arrest€and€the€trial.€€The€trial€judge€agreed,€saying,€ð ðYeah,Ïanything€can€be€changed.€€Thatððs€just€too€long.€€[The€jury]€can€believe€this€witness€orÏnot€believe€him,€whichever€they€desire€to€do.€€Iððm€sure€that€would€be€the€truth€if€weÏwent€over€there€at€this€time.ððÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€he€should€not€be€punished€for€the€ten€monthÏdelay€prior€to€trial.€€He€claims€that€ð ð[t]o€punish€[him]€for€the€delay€in€our€judicial€systemÏis€unconstitutional.ðð€€The€defendant€is€missing€the€point.€€He€was€not€being€punishedÏfor€the€delay€in€going€to€trial.€€Rather,€the€trial€court€was€pointing€out€that€showing€theÏtruck€to€the€jury€would€require€proof€from€the€defendant€that€the€truck€had€not€beenÏaltered€since€the€date€of€the€offense.€€The€defendant€made€no€effort€to€present€suchÏproof€other€than€the€defendantððs€statement€that€the€truck€œhad€had›€that€quirk€for€someÏtime.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€allow€the€jury€to€view€the€truck.€€AsÏthe€trial€judge€noted,€the€truck€would€have€certainly€operated€as€the€defendant€said€itÏwould.€€The€jury€heard€the€defendant€testify€that€the€headlights€had€to€be€on€in€orderÏfor€the€interior€lights€to€work.€€It€was€then€for€the€jury€to€decide€whether€or€not€toÏbelieve€the€defendant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€deniedÏhis€request€for€a€special€jury€instruction.€€He€requested€that€the€jury€specifically€beÏtold€that€the€defendant€ð ðcould€not€be€found€guilty€for€driving€on€a€road€but€rather€itÏhad€to€be€while€on€the€parking€lot.ðð€€This€is€because€the€indictment€alleged€that€theÏdefendant€had€committed€the€offense€of€driving€while€intoxicated€by€being€in€physicalÏcontrol€of€a€motor€vehicle.€€The€indictment€did€not€allege€that€the€offense€wasÍcommitted€by€the€defendantððs€driving€a€vehicle.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trial€judgeÏincorrectly€charged€the€jury€that€the€defendant€could€be€found€guilty€if€he€were€inÏphysical€control€of€a€vehicle€on€a€public€road,€highway,€street,€or€alley,€or€uponÏpremises€generally€frequented€by€the€public.€€He€contends€this€is€error€because€theÏindictment€only€charged€him€with€being€in€physical€control€of€a€vehicle€uponÏpremises€generally€frequented€by€the€public,€not€on€a€public€road,€highway,€street,€orÏalley.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€difficulty€here€is€that€the€defendant€did€admit€to€driving€his€truckÏacross€the€road€and€into€the€gravel€lot.€€However,€he€was€not€indicted€for€doing€so.€ÏThus,€the€jury€could€not€have€considered€his€admission€as€evidence€of€his€guilt€of€theÏcharged€offense.€€This€point€became€somewhat€confused€during€the€Stateððs€closingÏargument.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€judge€gave€the€following€instruction€to€the€jury:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€charges€[the€defendant]Ïunlawfully€committed€the€offense€of€driving€whileÏintoxicated€by€being€in€physical€control€of€a€motor€vehicleÏon€a€premises€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large,Ïto„wit:€the€parking€lot€of€Universal€American,€Inc.Ìà àThe€defendant€has€admitted€that€he€drove€acrossÏthe€road€to€get€into€this€parking€lot€when€his€girl€friend€wasÏ.€.€.€something€happened€to€her.€€Heððs€not€charged€in€theÏindictment€with€driving€on€a€public€road,€but€he€is€chargedÏwith€being€under€the€influence€and€having€in€his€control€aÏvehicle€upon€a€premises€generally€frequented€by€theÍpublic.€€Whether€that€was€in€his€control€or€not€is€a€questionÏthat€you€all€will€have€to€decide.€€Now,€the€fact€that€he€didÏdrive€it€across€the€road€can€be€looked€at€as€to€whether€heÏhad€the€authority€to€move€it,€and€that€can€be€looked€atÏwhether€it€was€in€his€control.€€Iððll€charge€you€the€normalÏcharge€after€lunch.ÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€jury€was€then€dismissed€for€lunch€and€when€its€members€returned,Ïthe€trial€judge€gave€the€following€instruction:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓà àAny€person€who€commits€the€offense€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence€is€guilty€of€a€crime.€€For€you€to€find€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€this€offense€the€State€must€haveÏproven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€theÏfollowing€essential€elements:Ìà àNo.€1,€that€the€defendant€was€driving€or€in€physicalÏcontrol€of€an€automobile,€and€that€the€defendant€wasÏdoing€so€on€a€public€road,€highway,€street€or€alley,€orÏupon€a€premises€generally€frequented€by€the€public€atÏlarge;€andÌà àNo.€3€[sic],€that€the€defendant€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€or€narcotic€drug€.€.€.€.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe€judge€further€instructed€the€jury€on€the€meaning€of€ð ðin€physical€control€of€theÏmotor€vehicle.ððÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€was€misled€by€this€secondÏinstruction.€€While€the€potential€for€confusion€is€present,€we€cannot€conclude€that€Ïreversible€error€has€occurred.€€Because€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€find€that€theÍdefendant€was€intoxicated€while€in€physical€control€of€his€vehicle€in€an€areaÏgenerally€frequented€by€the€public,€we€can€find€no€harm€suffered€by€the€defendant€asÏa€result€of€the€conflicting€instructions.€€We€also€note€that€during€its€deliberations,€theÏjury€sent€a€note€to€the€trial€judge€asking€for€a€definition€of€ð ðgenerallyðð€and€ð ðpublic€atÏlarge.ðð€€This€is€certainly€an€indication€that€the€jury€was€not€confused€by€the€conflictingÏinstructions€and€that€the€juryððs€verdict€was€based€on€the€proper€evidence.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€however,€continues€to€argue€that€the€verdict€cannotÏstand€because€the€State€failed€to€prove€that€the€lot€in€which€he€was€sitting€was€anÏarea€generally€frequented€by€the€public.€€A€defendant€challenging€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€proof€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€Court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€Court€will€notÏdisturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€inÏthe€record€and€any€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€asÏa€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àà àAs€noted€above,€sufficient€evidence€existed€such€that€the€jury€couldÏhave€properly€concluded€that€the€establishmentððs€parking€lot€was€ð ðgenerallyÍfrequented€by€the€public€at€large.ðð€€Officer€Hankins€testified€that€the€gravel€lotÏbelonged€to€Universal€America€and€that€the€defendantððs€truck€was€sitting€at€the€edgeÏof€the€lot€next€to€the€roadððs€emergency€lane.€€He€further€testified€that€the€area€inÏwhich€the€defendant€had€parked€was€generally€frequented€by€the€public.€€TheÏdefendant,€however,€testified€that€he€had€chosen€to€park€in€the€gravel€lot€because€heÏhad€once€worked€at€Universal€America€and€knew€that€it€was€a€warehouse€whereÏitems€are€loaded€in€and€out€on€an€infrequent€basis.€€On€cross„examination,€theÏdefendant€admitted€that€the€gravel€lot€was€next€to€a€public€road€and€that€it€was€a€lotÏthat€belonged€to€a€business€establishment.€€He€also€admitted€that€the€lot€was€notÏfenced,€that€he€saw€no€ð ðNo€Trespassingðð€signs,€and€that€he€knew€of€no€restrictions€onÏthe€lot.€€From€the€above€testimony,€we€conclude€that€the€jury€had€sufficient€evidenceÏto€determine€that€the€area€where€the€defendant€had€stopped€his€truck€was€an€areaÏgenerally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large.€€The€defendant€does€not€challenge€theÏother€elements€of€the€offense.€€Thus,€we€find€no€merit€to€the€defendantððs€sufficiencyÏchallenge.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€The€trialÏcourt€sentenced€the€defendant€to€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€with€all€but€tenÏdays€suspended.€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€should€have€been€given€theÏminimum€Ñ X Ñœsentence›€of€forty„eight€hours€of€incarceration.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€complains€of€his€or€her€sentence,€we€must€conduct€aÍòòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€TheÏburden€of€showing€that€the€sentence€is€improper€is€upon€the€appealing€party.€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€This€presumption,€however,€ð ðisÏconditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€consideredÏthe€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÒ  ÒÒ ¢ ÒÓ ` ¸ ŒX¸)ÓÌà àà àÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€noted€the€defendantððs€previous€criminalÏhistory€as€a€factor€in€determining€the€length€of€the€sentence.€€The€defendant€had€beenÏconvicted€of€driving€while€under€the€influence€in€1981€and€several€other€drivingÏoffenses€during€this€same€time€period.€€The€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€theÏsentence€is€improper.€€There€being€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€behalf€of€the€trial€court,Ïwe€affirm€the€defendantððs€sentence.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.Ì€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€œJudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________€€€ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€JudgeÌÔ% € Ô