State v. Shepherd
| Decision Date | 09 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED108519,ED108519 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY A. SHEPHERD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County
18BB-CR00207-01
Honorable Keith M. Sutherland
Timothy A. Shepherd ("Defendant") appeals the trial court's judgment, following a bench trial, convicting him of the class B felony of driving while intoxicated ("DWI" or "driving while intoxicated") as a habitual offender (Count I) and the class A misdemeanor of failing to drive on the right half of the roadway when the roadway was of sufficient width, resulting in an accident (Count II). On appeal, Defendant only challenges his conviction on Count I, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Defendant was a habitual offender. Because we disagree, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Defendant was charged by first amended information with Counts I and II for events that allegedly occurred on or about March 21, 2017. With respect to Count I, Defendant's DWI charge, the information alleged that "on or about March 21, 2017, on Highway 47 in [Warren County, Missouri], [ ] [D]efendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol." The information also alleged Defendant was a habitual offender and listed seven prior convictions for "driving while intoxicated" in Boulder County, Colorado which took place between 1985 and 2003. See 577.001(11)(a) RSMo 2016 (effective January 1, 2017 to August 27, 2017)1 (defining a "[h]abitual offender" as, inter alia, "a person who has been found guilty of . . . [f]ive or more intoxication-related traffic offenses committed on separate occasions") (emphasis omitted).
At a pre-trial hearing, the State introduced into evidence Exhibit 1, a certified copy of Defendant's driving record maintained by the Colorado Department of Revenue's Division of Motor Vehicles ("the Colorado Department of Revenue"), to prove Defendant was a habitual offender. See id. It is undisputed all of Defendant's prior convictions listed in Defendant's Colorado driving record involved violations of Colorado state law.
Exhibit 1 shows Defendant has seven prior convictions in Boulder County, Colorado which took place between 1985 and 2003; four convictions are for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and three convictions are for driving while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. See generally Colo. Rev. Stat. section 42-4-1301 (); Colo. Rev. Stat. section 42-4-1202 (effective 1973 to December 31, 1994).
Defendant's four prior Colorado convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs are as follows: (1) a June 30, 1986 conviction for events occurring on April 29, 1985 in which Defendant was not involved in an accident; (2) a January 24, 1992 conviction for events occurring on August 27, 1991 in which Defendant was not involved in an accident; (3) an August 1, 2000 conviction for events occurring on April 28, 2000 in which Defendant was involved in an accident; and (4) a July 25, 2003 conviction for events occurring on January 31, 2003 in which Defendant was not involved in an accident. For each of the four precedingconvictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, Defendant was assessed twelve points on his Colorado driver's license.
Defendant's three prior Colorado convictions for driving while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs are as follows: (1) a February 21, 1985 conviction for events occurring on December 25, 1984 in which Defendant was involved in an accident; (2) an April 28, 1989 conviction for events occurring on July 20, 1988 in which Defendant was involved in an accident; and (3) an October 15, 2001 conviction for events occurring on June 2, 2001 in which Defendant was not involved in an accident. For each of the three preceding convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, Defendant was assessed eight points on his Colorado driver's license.2
Defense counsel objected to the admission of Exhibit 1, arguing it did not contain sufficient information from which the court could find Defendant was a habitual offender. The trial court overruled defense counsel's objection, admitted Exhibit 1 into evidence, and found the exhibit proved Defendant was a habitual offender because it showed "[D]efendant has been found guilty of driving while intoxicated in Boulder County, Colorado on seven different occasions."
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment finding Defendant guilty of the class B felony of driving while intoxicated as a habitual offender (Count I) and the class A misdemeanor of failing to drive on the right half ofthe roadway when the roadway was of sufficient width, resulting in an accident (Count II). The trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years of imprisonment on Count I and six months of incarceration in jail on Count II, with the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
In Defendant's sole point on appeal, he argues there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Defendant was a habitual offender at the time he committed his Missouri DWI in March 2017, and therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support the enhancement of his DWI offense in Count I to the class B felony of driving while intoxicated as a habitual offender.3
A. General Law, the Standard of Review, and Whether Missouri Law Permits the State of Missouri to Use a Certified Driving Record from Another State's Department of Revenue to Prove a Defendant is a Habitual Offender
There is sufficient evidence to support enhancement of a DWI conviction to a class B felony of driving while intoxicated as a habitual offender when the State presents sufficient facts to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was found guilty of "[f]ive or more intoxication-related traffic offenses4 committed on separate occasions . . .."5 See section 577.023.1(2) RSMo 2016 (effective from January 1, 2017 to the present)6 (providing "[a] court shall find the defendant to be a . . . habitual offender . . . if [, inter alia], [e]vidence is introducedthat establishes sufficient facts pleaded to warrant a finding beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is a . . . habitual offender . . ."); section 577.001(11)(a) () (emphasis omitted); see also State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Mo. banc 2009) ("[i]t is the State's burden to prove prior intoxication-related traffic offenses beyond a reasonable doubt").
In making a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to support enhancement of a DWI offense, an appellate court "accept[s] as true all evidence to prove the prior offenses together with all reasonable inferences that support the [trial] court's finding." State v. Rigsby, 589 S.W.3d 661, 664 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Sallee, 554 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (citing Craig, 287 S.W.3d at 681); State v. Cordell, 500 S.W.3d 343, 345 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (citing State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Mo. banc 2015)). Additionally, an appellate court "ignores all contrary evidence and inferences." Cordell, 500 S.W.3d at 345 (quoting Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d at 362).
The State may make a prima facie case that a defendant has prior intoxication-related traffic offenses which result in enhancement of a DWI offense by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence. Cordell, 500 S.W.3d at 345-46. "Upon appellate review, circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence[.]" Id. at 345. Additionally, "circumstantial evidence need not be absolutely conclusive of guilt, nor must the evidence demonstrate the impossibility of innocence." Id. at 347 (citing State v. Mosby, 341 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011)).
Furthermore, if the State makes a prima facie case that a defendant has prior intoxication-related traffic offenses which result in the enhancement of a DWI offense and the defendant does not refute the State's evidence, the State has met its burden to prove prior intoxication-relatedtraffic offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Ellmaker, 611 S.W.3d 320, 328-29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) () (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); see also Craig, 287 S.W.3d at 681 ().
In this case, the State attempted to prove its prima facie case that Defendant had prior intoxication-related traffic offenses which result in enhancement of his DWI offense by presenting a certified driving record maintained by the Colorado Department of Revenue. Accordingly, before we examine the specific facts of this case and what type of crime qualifies as an "intoxication-related traffic offense" under Missouri law, we must determine the threshold issue of whether it is permissible under Missouri law for the State of Missouri to prove the existence of a defendant's prior intoxication-related traffic offenses by using a certified driving record from another state's department of revenue. This issue involves statutory interpretation, which is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo. See State v. Smith, 595 S.W.3d 143, 145 (Mo. banc 2020); see also State v. Rattles, 450 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014); State v. Gibson, 122 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).
An appellate court's primary rule in interpreting statutes is to determine the intent of the legislature from the language used, to give effect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial