Wright v. State, CR

• Decision Date: 18 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Citation: Wright v. State, 703 S.W.2d 850, 288 Ark. 209 (Ark. 1986)
• Parties: Carleton C. WRIGHT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 86-11.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 850

703 S.W.2d 850

288 Ark. 209

Carleton C. WRIGHT, Jr., Appellant, v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 86-11.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Feb. 18, 1986.

Fuchs and Villines by Kenneth G. Fuchs, Conway, for appellant.

Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

DUDLEY, Justice.

Appellant, Carleton C. Wright, Jr., was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusing to take a breathalyzer test.He was found guilty and sentenced for driving while intoxicated, and his driver's license was suspended for refusing to take a breathalyzer test.We affirm the conviction for driving while intoxicated but reverse the judgment suspending his driver's license for refusing to take a breathalyzer test.

There is substantial evidence to support the charge of driving while intoxicated.Dorothy Waters, a trooper, testified that she watched appellant's car on Interstate 40, and it was weaving.She started to follow appellant and, as they approached an overpass she watched his vehicle go off the road to the right and almost strike a guard rail on the bridge.She followed the vehicle for approximately two more miles and saw it run off the side of the road several times.

She stopped the car and noticed that appellant had an extremely heavy odor of alcoholic beverage about his person.He told her that he had been to a Christmas party and was returning home.She conducted field sobriety tests on him and reported that he performed "fair" on the alphabet test and "poor" on the finger dexterity test.She stated that he was argumentative and showed obvious signs of intoxication.In her opinion, he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages.She placed appellant under arrest for driving while intoxicated and took him to Northside detention in the North Little Rock Police Department.

Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of driving while intoxicated.On appeal, we view the evidence most favorable to the appellee and sustain the conviction if there is any substantial evidence to support it.Roberts v. State, 287 Ark. 451, 701 S.W.2d 112(1985).There is substantial evidence to support the conviction for driving while intoxicated.

When Trooper Waters and appellant arrived at the detention center they were met by a North Little Rock officer, Al Shultz, who advised appellant of his Miranda rights and his rights under the implied consent law, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 75-1045(Supp.1985).The warnings were contained in a form that Officer Shultz had personally devised.The Miranda warnings included the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.At the bottom of the Miranda section of the form there is a blank for a signature if the accused desires to waive his rights against self-incrimination.Appellant stated that he did not want to waive his rights and was instructed to write the word "refused" on the form.The form then explains the implied consent law, § 75-1045.At no place in the "warnings" is it made clear that the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination have no application whatsoever under the implied consent statute.

Following the implied consent explanation, the form has three questions.The first asks if the person understands all of the rights.Appellant marked "yes."The second question asks if the person is going to take the test.Appellant left this question blank.The third question asks if the person desires an additional test.This question was also left blank.At the bottom of the section dealing with § 75-1045 there is a signature line.Appellant wrote the word "refused" again.

When Officer Shultz asked appellant if he would take the breathalyzer test, appellant told him that he felt he should contact an attorney and talk with him before taking a test.Officer Shultz directed him to a pay phone, but there was no answer at his attorney's residence.Appellant told the officer that he wanted to wait and talk with his attorney.Shultz told him to try to phone again.Appellant did, but there was still no answer.Trooper Waters wrote out the tickets...