State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 26 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 59449.,WD 59449. |
| Citation | 77 S.W.3d 637 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ricky D. MITCHELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Cyril H. Hendricks, Jefferson City, for appellants.
Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondents.
Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., NEWTON and HARDWICK, JJ.
Ricky D. Mitchell appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, § 577.010, RSMo 2000.1 On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding that he was operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition. He also challenges the lawfulness of his arrest. Because this court finds that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that Mr. Mitchell was operating his vehicle while in an intoxicated condition when Officer Pemberton found him and lawfully arrested him, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated, this court views the evidence, and any reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Knifong, 53 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Mo.App.2001). In the early morning hours of January 27, 2000, Officer Darren Pemberton of the Fulton Police Department was driving on Highway 54 when he saw a pickup truck stopped on the side of the road. Officer Pemberton noticed the truck because it was stopped partially on the shoulder of the highway and partially on the grass, and its brake lights were on. Officer Pemberton decided to park his patrol car behind the truck and ask the driver of the truck if he needed assistance.
As he approached the truck, Officer Pemberton noticed that the truck's engine was running. When he got closer to the truck, he could see that the driver of the truck, Mr. Mitchell, was sitting upright in the driver's seat but appeared to be sleeping. When Officer Pemberton was right next to the truck, he looked in the window and noticed that Mr. Mitchell's foot was on the brake, and the transmission was in the "drive" position.
Officer Pemberton tapped on the window and eventually awakened Mr. Mitchell. Officer Pemberton asked Mr. Mitchell, who appeared "a little bit groggy," to roll down the window. Mr. Mitchell had difficulty finding the electric window control button. When he finally found the button, he rolled down the window three inches.
Officer Pemberton then asked Mr. Mitchell for his driver's license. When Mr. Mitchell opened his wallet, Officer Pemberton could clearly see Mr. Mitchell's driver's license; however, Mr. Mitchell looked through his wallet several times before he found it and gave it to Officer Pemberton.
After he obtained Mr. Mitchell's driver's license, Officer Pemberton asked Mr. Mitchell to put the truck in the "park" position. Mr. Mitchell put the truck in the "neutral" position instead, however. When Mr. Mitchell then took his foot off of the brake, his truck began rolling back towards Officer Pemberton's patrol car. Officer Pemberton repeatedly asked Mr. Mitchell to stop, but was unsure whether Mr. Mitchell was even aware that the truck was rolling back. Mr. Mitchell eventually stopped the truck before it hit the patrol car.
Once Mr. Mitchell stopped the truck, Officer Pemberton asked him to get out of the truck. As Mr. Mitchell was getting out of his truck, Officer Pemberton noticed that he was staggering, and that he had to hold on to the side rail of his truck bed for support. When Mr. Mitchell was standing at the rear of the truck talking to Officer Pemberton, Mr. Mitchell "continually swayed in all directions, [and] had to shuffle his feet to maintain his balance." Officer Pemberton also noticed that Mr. Mitchell "had a strong odor of intoxicants about him," his speech was slurred, and his eyes were watery, bloodshot, and glassy.
When Officer Pemberton asked Mr. Mitchell if he had had anything to drink, Mr. Mitchell replied that he "had had a few beers." Officer Pemberton then asked Mr. Mitchell to perform three standardized field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the one-leg stand test, and the walk-and-turn test. Mr. Mitchell's performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated that he had "high levels of intoxication," and Mr. Mitchell was unable to satisfactorily perform either the one-leg stand test or the walk-and-turn test. From Mr. Mitchell's performance on these tests, and the totality of the circumstances, Officer Pemberton believed that Mr. Mitchell was intoxicated.
Officer Pemberton then arrested Mr. Mitchell and took him to the Fulton Police Department, where he advised Mr. Mitchell of his Miranda2 rights. When Officer Pemberton asked Mr. Mitchell if he was on any medications or under a doctor's treatment he said that he was not. Mr. Mitchell told Officer Pemberton that he had been sleeping for the past three hours. Mr. Mitchell refused Officer Pemberton's multiple requests to take a breathalyzer test.
Mr. Mitchell was later tried by a jury for the class D felony of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010. Mr. Mitchell was convicted, and the court sentenced him as a persistent intoxication-related offender under § 577.023.1(1) and (2), to four years in prison. Mr. Mitchell filed this appeal.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, this court is limited to a determination of whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Eppenauer, 957 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Mo.App.1997). This court will accept as true all evidence that supports the judgment, and disregard evidence that is unfavorable to the judgment. Knifong, 53 S.W.3d at 193.
In his first point, Mr. Mitchell argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The statute under which Mr. Mitchell was convicted, § 577.010, provides that "[a] person commits the crime of `driving while intoxicated' if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition." Mr. Mitchell does not challenge the fact that he was in an intoxicated condition. Instead, he argues that the evidence does not support a finding that he was operating his vehicle in such a condition. Section 577.001.1 defines "operates" or "operating" as "physically driving or operating a motor vehicle." Mr. Mitchell contends that his sitting in his truck with the engine running, the transmission in the "drive" position, and his foot on the brake pedal was not sufficient to constitute "operating" the vehicle within the meaning of the statute. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Director of Revenue
... ... SC 84714 ... Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc ... March 4, 2003 ... Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James R. Layton, State Solicitor, James A. Chenault, III, General Counsel, Jefferson City, for Appellee ... Timothy R. Cisar, Lake Ozark, for Respondent ... Stewart v. Director of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472, 475-76 (Mo. banc 1986); State v. Mitchell 77 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Mo.App.2002); Mayberry v. Director of Revenue, 983 S.W.2d 628, 632 (Mo.App.1999). This is true even if that person is sleeping or ... ...
-
State v. Morton
...evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mitchell, 77 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Mo.App. 2002). We accept as true the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom that are favorable to the judgment. State v......
-
State v. Mitchell
...from which a reasonable fact finder could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mitchell, 77 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Mo. App. 2002). We accept as true the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom that are favorable to the judgment. State v. McQuar......
-
State v. Besendorfer
...references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2000, as updated through the 2005 Cumulative Supplement.7 See also State v. Mitchell, 77 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (defendant found asleep in his truck on shoulder with engine running but not moving forward because defendant's foot......