Opinion
10-P-2026
12-07-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. RICHARD S. BUDREWICZ.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Richard S. Budrewicz, was convicted of operating under the influence of liquor, second offense. He appeals, claiming insufficiency of the evidence and that his motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been allowed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the second offense element of the charge.
We review the evidence under the familiar Latimore standard. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Our review of the record indicates that the evidence was sufficient to withstand the defendant's motion. The Commonwealth demonstrated that, at 11:30 P. M., the defendant drove through a stop sign without stopping, had a 'distinct' smell of alcohol, had red and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and failed a field sobriety test. At the police station, the defendant's behavior was odd and belligerent.
For these reasons, as well as for substantially those in the brief of the Commonwealth, we affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Fecteau & Carhart, JJ.),