Opinion
No. 5785
12-21-2011
PHILLIP CLAYTON LAWTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Dave Reineke, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Heather Nobrega, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND JUDGMENT
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Peter G. Ashman, Judge.
Appearances: Dave Reineke, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Heather Nobrega, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
BOLGER, Judge.
Phillip C. Lawton was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a suspended license, and improper use of vehicle registration. In this appeal, Lawton argues that insufficient evidence supports his DUI conviction. In particular, he argues there was insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was driving.
The evidence at trial established that the police were called to the Red Apple market in Anchorage in response to a report of intoxicated persons drinking in a van in the store's parking lot. Lawton came out of the store shortly after the police arrived. He admitted that he had been driving the van, and he was arrested. At the police station, Lawton submitted to a breath test, which showed that he had a blood alcohol concentration of .22 percent.
Nellie Alexie testified that she lived with Lawton and that they had been partying the night before Lawton was arrested. She said that Lawton had driven her and some other friends to the Red Apple market. Lawton went into the store with her and stayed with her until they came out of the store. Ellis Kaloke, another friend, gave similar testimony.
Lawton's argument is based on the testimony of Larry Wheaton. Wheaton testified that he was drinking beer and vodka in the alley behind the Red Apple market on the day of this incident. He said that Lawton joined him around noon, and they drank an entire bottle of vodka with some beers to chase down the liquor. Wheaton later saw that Lawton had been detained by the police. Based on Wheaton's testimony, Lawton argues that he did not become intoxicated until after he drove to the market.
Lawton's argument views the evidence in the light most favorable to his innocence. But when we assess the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Viewed in this light, there was substantial evidence suggesting that Lawton was already intoxicated when he drove to the Red Apple market.
Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008).
In particular, there were several witnesses whose testimony conflicted with Wheaton's recollection. The manager of the Red Apple testified that Alexie and Lawton walked into the store together. Alexie testified that Lawton walked into the Red Apple with her and stayed with her until they came out and encountered the police. Officer Matthew Tarbox testified that he saw Lawton walking out of the Red Apple with Alexie, carrying bags of groceries. Officer Danny Gill testified that, when he questioned Lawton, Lawton stated that the last drinks he had were a "shooter" and a couple of beers before he drove to the store.
We must affirm Lawton's conviction if a reasonable juror could have concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that a reasonable juror could have rejected Wheaton's testimony and concluded that Lawton was intoxicated when he drove to the Red Apple market.
Id.
--------
We therefore AFFIRM the superior court's judgment.