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-