Warren v. State

Appellant was charged by information with driving while intoxicated with an enhancement paragraph alleging that appellant had an open container of an alcoholic beverage in his immediate possession at the time of the offense. A police officer was dispatched to the scene of a minor accident, where appellant had crashed into a ditch. The officer found an open container of an alcoholic beverage in the truck, with some of the beverage spilled onto the passenger's seat, and he testified that the hood of the truck was warm. The evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant was intoxicated at the time he was driving in a public place. Appellant was not subject to a custodial interrogation because he was not in custody at the time the officer asked appellant how many drinks he had consumed and whether he was taking any medication. Without any proof that the officer was not qualified to testify as an expert, appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure to object to the officer's expert testimony. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, No. 01-10-00047-CR, 09-08-2011.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

Appellant, Donald Wayne Warren, was charged by information with driving while intoxicated with an enhancement paragraph alleging that appellant had an open container of an alcoholic beverage in his immediate possession at the time of the offense.*fn1 Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charged offense and not true to the enhancement. A jury found appellant guilty as charged. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph true and assessed punishment at 180 days in county jail and a fine of $2,000. The trial court also suspended appellant’s sentence of confinement and placed him on community supervision for 18 months. In four issues, appellant argues: (1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish there was a temporal link between his intoxication and his driving; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to suppress certain statements made to a police officer; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Warren v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal