State v. Robert Douglas Tarnosky

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: June 17, 1999
• Docket: 01C01-9812-CC-00504
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED MAY SESSION, 1999 June 17, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9812-CC-00504 ) Appellee, ) ) ) RUTHERFORD COU NTY VS. ) ) HON. JAMES K. CLAYTON ROBERT DOUGLAS TARNOSKY,) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Direct Ap peal - D .U.I.)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

GERALD L. MELTON PAUL G. SUMMERS Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

RUSSELL N. PERKINS CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Public Defender Coun sel for the S tate 201 West Main Street, Ste. 101 425 Fifth Avenu e North Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Nashville, TN 37243

WILLIAM WHITESELL, JR. District Attorney General 3rd Floor Judicial Building Murfreesboro, TN 37130

ORDER FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE ORDER

The appellant, Robert Douglas Tarnosky, was convicted after a bench trial

in the Rutherford Co unty Circuit Court of one (1) count of driving under the

influence of an intoxic ant. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a)(1). He also pled

guilty to one (1) count of driving on a su spen ded lic ense . On ap peal, he claims

that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the trial cou rt’s findin g of gu ilt beyond

a reasonable doubt. After a thorough review of the record before this Court, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals.

When an accused challeng es the sufficiency of the evidence, this Co urt

must review the record to determine if the evidence adduced during the trial was

sufficient “to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reaso nable

doubt.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e). This Court is required to afford the state the

strongest legitimate view of the evidenc e con tained in the re cord a s well a s all

reaso nable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.

State v. Tuttle, 914 S.W .2d 926, 932 (Tenn. Crim . App. 1995 ).

In an agreed Statement of Facts,1 the parties stipulated that a

Murfreesbo ro police officer observed the appellant driving e rratically for a period

of time before stopping the appellant’s vehicle. When the officer asked the

appellant to step out of his vehicle, the appellant was unsteady on his feet and

smelled of alcohol. The appellant unsuccessfully performed several field sobriety

tests and admitted that he had been drinking. Furthermore, a videotape which

depicted the traffic stop and the sobriety tes ts was pla yed for the trial court.

1 Pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c), the appellant submitted a “Statement of Facts” in lieu of the trial transcript.

-2- Testifying on his own b ehalf, th e app ellant claimed that he had ingested

medications which affected his equilibrium.

In a bench trial, the verdict o f the trial judge is entitled to the same weight

on appeal as that of a jury ve rdict. State v. H atchett, 560 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tenn.

1978); State v. Frahm, 737 S.W .2d 799 , 800 (T enn. C rim. App . 1987). W e

conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding of guilt

for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Appellant may remain on bond pending appeal with a twenty-five percent

increase. Costs of this appe al will be paid by the S tate of T enne ssee as it

appea rs that the a ppellant is in digent.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

___________________________________ NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE

-3-