Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Holden v. City of Florence
Citations: 665 So. 2d 1004; 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 129; 1995 WL 127129Docket: CR-93-2257
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; March 23, 1995; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Ottis Glenn Holden was convicted of DUI and illegal lane usage, resulting in a 12-month jail sentence and fines of $2000 and $50, respectively. The conviction stemmed from an incident on September 14, 1993, in Florence, Alabama, where Sergeant Curtis observed Holden repeatedly crossing the centerline while driving. Despite attempts to signal him to stop, Holden continued driving at approximately 25 mph until officers forced him to halt. Upon stopping, officers detected a strong odor of alcohol, noted his unsteadiness, and reported that he failed field sobriety tests. Officer McDonald corroborated these observations, indicating Holden's slurred speech and red eyes, leading both officers to conclude he was too intoxicated to drive safely. In his defense, Holden testified he had been resting at home and was called by a friend for a loan, prompting him to briefly visit a bar where he consumed a small amount of beer. He claimed he did not stop for the police because he did not want to pull over into a depression on the road. Holden asserted that his unsteady appearance was due to knee problems and that he had dressed quickly. He contended he successfully completed the finger-to-nose test and had only paused on the letter "Q" during the ABC test. He also explained his red eyes by citing allergies. Additionally, he mentioned that his truck was old and in need of repairs. The appellant's steering mechanism was heavily worn at the time of his arrest. After being taken to the Florence detention center, he refused to take the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal and that the evidence does not support the jury's verdict. The court analyzed the sufficiency of evidence, affirming that it must accept the city's evidence as true and in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Testimonies indicated the appellant exhibited signs of intoxication, including an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, red eyes, and unsteady movement, with further evidence of illegal lane usage. Conflicting evidence was noted but deemed a matter for the jury to resolve, affirming the jury's verdict and the trial court's denial of acquittal. Additionally, the appellant contends that a longer sentence was imposed than that received in municipal court. The court clarified that, in a trial de novo, a circuit court can impose any lawful sentence and is not bound by prior rulings from municipal or district judges. The appellant has no grounds for claiming error unless evidence of trial court vindictiveness is present, which was not the case here. The sentence, being his fifth DUI conviction within five years, was within legal limits. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed, with all judges concurring.