ÿWPCT …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÎv~ëvÓi D3< 0@o AO¯Æþ 0DÄ D/ B7˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- Ç eÈÉÊËDÌÍHÎÏDÐÓ€Úƒç"3|xÛ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òSeptember€26,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€;XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà0 à€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °†XDp”XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9611„CC„00405Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àSEVIER€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€R.€HOLT,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌBOBBY€TEASTER,€à àà à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(DUI)ÌÓ ` °œXÓó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òEDWARD€CANTRELL€MILLERà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òSUSANNA€LAWS€THOMASó ó€à àà àò òCLINTON€J.€MORGAN€ó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ102€Mims€Avenueà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌNewport,€TN€37821„3614à àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0943ÌÌò òà àà àà àó óà àà àà àò òALFRED€C.€SCHMUTZER,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òà àà àà àà àó óà àà àò òG.€SCOTT€GREEN€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Avenue,€Room€301„E€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37862€ÌÌÌ€ÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEò ò€Ìó óÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant,€Bobby€Teaster,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€Ïthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Following€a€jury€trial€in€theÏCriminal€Court€of€Sevier€County,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€driving€underÏthe€influence,€first€offense.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€Defendant€to€serve€elevenÏ(11)€months,€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€with€fifty€percent€(50%)€minimum€serviceÏprior€to€release.€€The€sentence€was€ordered€to€run€consecutive€to€a€prior€€tenÏ(10)€year€penitentiary€sentence€for€bribery€and€subornation€of€perjury€in€CaseÏNo.€5675€in€Sevier€County.€€Defendant€raises€two€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€thatÏthe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€a€verdict€of€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€of€first€offense€DUI,€and;€(2)€€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€orderingÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àà àI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosection,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÍU.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€This€standard€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicatedÏupon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€ofÏthe€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€€832,Ï835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€theÏburden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏverdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.Ï1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏNor€may€this€court€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÏat€835.€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€atÏ476.€€ÌÌà àAt€approximately€11:00€p.m.€on€January€18,€1994,€Rene€Kendall€and€JeffÏWarner,€both€of€whom€are€Pigeon€Forge€police€officers,€were€on€patrol€andÏdrove€into€the€parking€lot€of€the€Gold€Star€gas€station€and€market.€€The€GoldÏStar€sits€at€an€intersection€of€two€public€roads.€€They€immediately€sawÏDefendant€walking€unsteadily€from€a€truck€at€the€gas€pump€to€the€inside€of€theÏstore.€€€€The€officers€stopped€and€watched€him€while€noting€that€he€had€left€hisÏtruck€running.€€A€few€minutes€later,€Defendant€€walked€unsteadily€back€to€hisÏtruck€and€got€inside€the€vehicle.€€The€officers€pulled€up€to€the€truck€whereÏDefendant€was€sitting€by€himself.€€Officer€Kendall€requested€Defendant€to€getÏout€of€the€truck.€€Kendall€smelled€alcohol€on€Defendant,€and€noticed€that€he€wasÏunsteady€getting€out€of€the€truck.€€The€officers€and€Defendant€went€back€into€theÏstore€because€it€was€cold.€€Inside€the€store,€Defendant€agreed€to€submit€to€fieldÏsobriety€tests.€€ÌÌà àFirst,€Defendant€failed€the€alphabet€test.€€Officer€Kendall€testified€thatÏDefendant€slurred€his€words€and€could€not€say€the€alphabet€in€the€correct€order.€ÏSecond,€he€failed€the€stand„on„one€foot€test.€€Officer€Kendall€observed€thatÏDefendant€was€unable€to€control€his€balance.€€€Third,€Defendant€€failed€the€heelÏ„to„toe€test.€€According€to€Officer€Kendall,€Defendant€could€not€keep€his€balanceÏwhile€attempting€to€walk€a€straight€line.€€Officer€Kendall€determined€Defendant€toÏbe€extremely€impaired.€€At€this€point€Defendant€was€placed€under€arrest€forÍDUI,€and€Officer€€Kendall€asked€him€to€empty€his€pockets.€€Defendant€removedÏa€glass€vial€of€white€powder€from€his€coat€pocket.€€Officer€Kendall€thenÏsearched€Defendant€and€removed€€a€bag€of€white€powder€from€his€shirt€pocketÏand€a€tube€pipe€from€his€back€pocket.€€The€powder€was€sent€to€the€crime€lab,Ïand€it€tested€positive€for€cocaine.€€Defendant€said€the€cocaine€was€for€hisÏpersonal€use.€€Ìà àÌà àDefendant€was€taken€to€the€police€station€where€Officer€Kendall€askedÏDefendant€to€submit€to€a€blood€test€for€drugs€and€alcohol.€€Defendant€refusedÏthe€blood€test€but€said€he€would€take€an€intoximeter€test.€€Neither€test€wasÏadministered.€€The€proof€at€trial€was€that€Defendant€had€previously€pled€guilty€toÏmisdemeanor€drug€charges€in€the€Trial€Justice€Court€of€Sevier€County€regardingÏthe€cocaine€and€drug€paraphernalia€found€in€his€possession€at€the€time€of€hisÏarrest€for€DUI.ÌÌÌà àOfficer€Warner€testified€that€on€January€18,€1994,€he€was€on€patrol€withÏOfficer€Kendall.€€He€saw€the€Defendant€staggering€to€his€truck.€€Officer€WarnerÏwas€present€during€the€field€sobriety€tests€given€to€Defendant,€and€in€hisÏopinion,€Defendant€was€ð ðhighly€under€the€influence€of€either€alcohol€and/orÏdrugs.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€defense€proof€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€Iva€McMahan,€theÏDefendantððs€aunt.€€She€testified€that€on€January€18,€1994,€the€Defendant€calledÏher€from€the€Gold€Star€market€for€assistance€because€he€had€run€out€of€gas€inÏhis€vehicle.€€She€and€her€husband€picked€Defendant€€up€and€took€him€to€hisÏtruck€on€Waldenððs€Creek.€€After€refueling€the€truck,€they€then€followed€DefendantÏback€to€the€Gold€Star€where€Defendant€stopped€and€they€went€back€home.€ÏShe€testified€that€Defendant€did€not€appear€to€be€drunk,€and€that€she€œdid€not›Ïsmell€any€alcohol€on€him.€€She€œalso€did€not€remember›€at€what€time€she€lastÏsaw€Defendant€on€that€night.€à àÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„401(a)€provides€in€part€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓÌà8 à(a)€It€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€drive€or€to€be€in€physical€controlÏof€any€automobile€.€.€.€on€any€of€the€public€roads€and€highways€ofÏthe€state,€.€.€.€or€any€other€premises€which€is€generally€frequentedÏby€the€public€at€large,€while:€(1)€Under€the€influence€of€anyÏintoxicant,€marijuana,€narcotic€drug,€or€drug€producing€stimulatingÏeffects€on€the€central€nervous€system;€.€.€.€.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àFirst,€from€the€testimony€at€trial,€Defendant€was€clearly€in€physical€controlÏof€his€€truck.€€The€officers€observed€Defendant€get€out€of€his€running€truck,€enterÏthe€store,€and€then€return€to€his€truck€moments€later€with€the€engine€still€running.€€ÍòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lawrenceóó,€849€S.W.2d€761€(Tenn.€1993).€€Second,€he€was€clearlyÏon€premises€frequented€by€the€public€at€large.€€The€Gold€Star€gas€station€andÏmarket€is€located€in€a€busy€part€of€Pigeon€Forge.€€It€logically€follows€that€theÏGold€Star€is€an€establishment€frequented€by€the€public.€€Third,€Defendant€wasÏclearly€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Based€on€Officer€KendallððsÏexperience€and€observations,€he€determined€€Defendant€to€be€ð ðvery€impairedððÏand€drunk.€€Officer€Warner€further€testified€that€€he€observed€Defendant€to€beÏð ðhighly€under€the€influence€of€either€alcohol€and/or€drugs.ðð€€€A€rational€jury€couldÏhave€concluded€that€the€Defendantððs€appearance,€his€staggering€walk,€hisÏslurred€speech,€and€his€failure€to€adequately€perform€each€of€the€field€sobrietyÏtests€demonstrated€that€the€Defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.ÌÌà àIn€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€first€offense,€DUI.€€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.à àÌà àÌà àà àà àà àII.€€SENTENCINGÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ordering€consecutiveÏsentencing.€€Defendant€was€convicted€on€September€26,€1995€of€bribery€andÏsubornation€of€perjury€and€was€sentenced€to€ten€(10)€years€in€prison.€€(CaseÍNo.€5675,€Sevier€County).€€He€was€serving€that€sentence€when€brought€beforeÏthe€trial€court€and€convicted€of€DUI.€€The€DUI€sentence€was€ordered€to€beÏserved€consecutively€to€the€sentences€for€bribery€and€subornation€of€perjury.€€€€à àà àÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€There€are,€however,€exceptions€to€theÏpresumption€of€correctness.€€First,€the€record€must€demonstrate€that€the€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòId.óó€€€Second,€the€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€in€sentencing.€€Third,€the€presumption€does€not€apply€when€theÏdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€898€S.W.2d€742,€745€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóÏòòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÍproper€weight€to€the€facts€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€andÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thenÏwe€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€differentÏresult.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ìà àÌà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of:€(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)Ïthe€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancingÏfactors;€(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)Ïthe€defendantððs€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€&€„210;€òòsee€State€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1987).ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€explicitly€setÏforth€its€reasoning€in€ordering€consecutive€sentencing,€and€hence,€failed€to€followÏproper€statutory€sentencing€procedure.€€Therefore,€review€by€this€court€œis›€òòdeóóÏòònovoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€€Ìà àÌà àUpon€request€by€the€Defendant,€the€trial€court€proceeded€to€sentenceÏDefendant€immediately€following€the€jury€verdict.€€The€State€submitted€facts€in€itsÍargument€during€the€hearing€regarding€the€Defendantððs€extensive€criminal€history,Ïand€defense€counsel€admitted€that€the€criminal€history€recited€by€the€State€wasÏð ðessentiallyðð€as€the€prosecutor€had€submitted.€€This€record€reflects€that€theÏDefendant€has€been€convicted€of€bribery,€subornation€of€perjury,€possessionÏwith€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€Schedule€IV€drugs,€simple€possession€of€cocaine,Ïpossession€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€marijuana,€possession€with€intent€to€sellÏor€deliver€cocaine,€and€another€DUI€conviction.€€Both€of€Defendantððs€arrests€forÏDUI€and€the€conduct€which€led€to€the€bribery€and€subornation€of€perjury€chargesÏwere€committed€by€Defendant€while€he€was€on€probation€and/or€parole€fromÏprior€felony€convictions.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€relatively€brief€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€did€notÏstate€on€the€record€how€he€had€applied€the€principals€of€sentencing€found€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103,€failed€to€submit€specific€findingsÏof€fact€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„209(c),€and€didÏnot€state€reasons€for€the€decision€to€order€consecutive€sentencing.€€However,Ïpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115,€we€find€that€theÏrecord€supports€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€Defendant€is€anÏoffender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€is€extensive.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€40„35„115(b)(2).€€Furthermore,€we€find€from€the€record€as€a€whole€that€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€necessary€to€protect€the€public€from€Defendant€and€is€reasonablyÍrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€by€Defendant.€€òòState€v.ÏWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€on€appeal€relies€upon€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€specificallyÏset€forth€facts€to€justify€a€consecutive€sentence€in€support€of€his€argument€thatÏthis€court€should€reverse€the€trial€court€and€order€the€sentence€to€be€servedÏconcurrently€to€the€prior€felony€convictions.€€While€the€trial€court€may€have€failedÏto€specify€certain€facts€to€support€the€consecutive€sentencing,€we€find€that€theÏrecord€provides€the€facts€necessary€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€action.€€ÌÌà àFinding€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction,€and€that€there€isÏno€error€in€ordering€the€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€priorÏconvictions€for€bribery€and€subornation€of€perjury,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€Judge