James David Hester, Jr. v. State of Texas--Appeal from County Crim Court No 2 of Dallas County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-151-CR

JAMES DAVID HESTER, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Criminal Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # MB99-25187-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found James Hester guilty of driving while intoxicated, and the trial court sentenced him to 120 days in jail; imposition of his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for twenty-four months. Hester s single issue on appeal is that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish that Hester was driving on the date of the offense. The witness who observed the pickup being operated erratically and speeding never specifically identified Hester as the driver. The two police officers who testified arrived at the scene after the pickup was stopped in a parking lot, and therefore they did not see Hester driving.

In reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing due process standard from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). In reviewing a factual sufficiency claim, we ask[] whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrates that the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof to the extent that the [finding of guilt] is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The court does not view the evidence through the prism of in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Id. at 7 (quoting Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)).

As the State points out, the eyewitness testified unequivocally that the person the police arrested was the same person who was driving the pickup he followed. Police officers testified that they arrested Hester. Applying the standards of review, we find that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that Hester was the driver of the vehicle.

We affirm the judgment.

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 29, 2002

Do not publish

[CR25]