Donald Wayne Warren v. State
377 S.W.3d 9
Tex. App.2011Background
- Appellant Donald Wayne Warren was charged with driving while intoxicated with an enhancement alleging open container in his immediate possession during the offense.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charged offense and not true to the enhancement; the jury found him guilty as charged.
- The trial court found the enhancement true and sentenced him to 180 days in county jail and a $2,000 fine, suspended confinement, and 18 months of community supervision.
- Evidence at the Denny’s scene showed Warren driving a truck into a ditch; Deputy Drake observed signs of intoxication and found an open container in the truck.
- The hood and cab of the truck were warm, suggesting recent driving; there was spilled alcohol on the passenger seat, indicating drinking during the drive.
- Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for a temporal link between intoxication and driving, challenged suppression of statements, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, all of which were addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of temporal link between intoxication and driving | Warren argues no temporal link proven. | State asserts evidence showed intoxication at driving time. | Sufficient evidence to prove intoxicated while driving. |
| Motion to suppress statements | Nine Miranda-related claims of custodial interrogation. | Officer interrogation did not occur or statements were non-interrogation; custody not shown. | No Miranda violation; suppression denied. |
| Effective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to HGN testimony and to admission of lawyer-contact issue. | Record silent; strategic justification presumed. | No reversible error; claims fail. |
| Miranda and custodial interrogation standards applied | Statements before and during field sobriety testing were custodial interrogation. | Interrogation did not occur; not in custody. | Interrogation/custody analysis favoring the State; no suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (establishes temporal link may be circumstantial; driving intoxicated evidence at scene)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1984) (noncustodial questioning before arrest not custody; field sobriety incident)
- Shpikula v. State, 68 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—Houston 2002) (Miranda rights before traffic-stop arrest context)
- Innis v. United States, 466 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1980) (defining interrogation and its scope)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard for suppression rulings)
- Massie v. State, 744 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988) (routine questions at accident scene not interrogation)
- Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (questions incidental to accident not interrogation)
- Ellis v. State, 86 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002) (expert qualification for HGN testimony; context of evidence)
- Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (presumed strategy for trial decisions when record silent)