Opinion
No. 05-02-01105-CR
Opinion Filed July 8, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 296-81214-98. AFFIRMED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant guilty of felony driving while intoxicated. On appeal, appellant brings two grounds of error, asserting he was denied effective assistance of counsel and the evidence of his guilt was factually insufficient. We overrule both grounds and affirm the trial court's judgment. Under his first ground, appellant complains his trial attorney (1) did not spend sufficient time discussing with him the merits of a guilty plea rather than electing a jury trial, (2) did not spend sufficient time preparing appellant's defense, and (3) failed to object to the admission of certain evidence. To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel complaints, appellant must show counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as well as a reasonable probability that a different outcome would have resulted but for counsel's error. See Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Appellant's first two complaints fail because they are not supported by an affirmative demonstration of ineffectiveness in the record. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). His third complaint fails because it is not supported with either argument or authority suggesting why the evidence was inadmissible. See Brown v. State, 6 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999, pet. ref'd). Appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt by pointing to testimony that he had lost one of his legs and could not perform some of the common field sobriety tests. However, he ignores the evidence supporting the jury's determination that appellant was intoxicated: the arresting officer saw appellant speeding and weaving within his lane of traffic, appellant's reaction to the officer's attempt to pull him over and his slow manner in removing his seatbelt were consistent with his being intoxicated, appellant smelled of alcohol and admitted drinking four or five beers, and he was unable to count backwards and made mistakes in reciting the alphabet. The arresting officer testified he believed that appellant was intoxicated and had lost the normal use of mental and physical faculties. As a neutral review of all the evidence does not demonstrate that the proof of appellant's guilt was so weak as to undermine our confidence in the verdict, we are unable to sustain his factual sufficiency challenge. See Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). We affirm the trial court's judgment.