Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04

Section 49.04 prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of erratic driving, impaired balance, field sobriety test results, and drinking can support a conviction.

Hennessy v. State · filed 2008-09-16

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... But despite this alleged absence of some evidence of intoxication, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hennessy was guilty of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction when evidence proves that alcohol deprived a driver of the normal use of mental or physical faculties while driving.

Kirsch v. State · filed 2008-12-04(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant lacked the normal use of his mental or physical faculties by reason of intoxication when he crashed into Gomez’s truck.

Section 49.04 prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Ferralez v. State · filed 2009-02-25

After reviewing all the evidence using the appropriate appellate standards, we conclude the jury had before it both factually and legally sufficient evidence to find that (1) the appellant, (2) operated, (3) a motor vehicle, (4) in a public place, (5) while intoxicated.

Evidence that alcohol deprived a driver of the normal use of mental or physical faculties can support a conviction under § 49.04(a), even when the driver attributes the symptoms to diabetes.

Russell v. State · filed 2009-05-13(a)

We conclude that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Russell operated a motor vehicle in a public place while not having the normal use of his mental and physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body.

Evidence of impaired behavior, poor field sobriety test performance, and breath alcohol levels above 0.08 can support a conviction under § 49.04(a).

Lancaster v. State · filed 2009-05-14(a)

A person commits DWI if “the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (Vernon 2003). ... Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Lancaster committed DWI.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; circumstantial evidence can establish that the defendant was the intoxicated driver.

Morgan v. State · filed 2009-05-14(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... Accordingly, having reviewed the entire record, we find the jury’s findings were rational and the great weight and preponderance of the evidence supports, rather than contradicts, the verdict.

Section 49.04 permits proof of driving while intoxicated through witness and officer observations without breath, blood, or video evidence.

Pierce v. State · filed 2009-05-29

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Appellant was intoxicated, that he drove a vehicle in a public place, and that he had two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. Therefore, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Section 49.04(a) permits a driving-while-intoxicated conviction when sufficient evidence supports either loss of normal mental or physical faculties from alcohol or an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Johnson v. State · filed 2009-06-05(a)

Accordingly, based on either definition of intoxication, we conclude that the evidence is factually sufficient to support Johnson’s conviction for driving while intoxicated.

A conviction under § 49.04 can rest on factually sufficient evidence of intoxication even without open containers or a jail video.

Jerome Whalen Duncan A/K/A Jerry Whalen Duncan v. State · filed 2009-07-08

But despite this alleged absence of some evidence of intoxication, our focus is on the factual sufficiency of the evidence of intoxication that was admitted. Considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, we conclude that the evidence of intoxication is factually sufficient and the jury was justified in finding Duncan guilty of driving while intoxicated (third offense).

Section 49.04 requires proof that a person drove a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; the evidence of intoxication here was factually sufficient to support the conviction.

Cox v. State · filed 2010-01-06

As alleged in the indictment in this case, the State was required to prove that Appellant drove a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated and that he had two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. ... After reviewing the evidence in a neutral light and giving the required deference to the jury’s verdict, we hold that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the verdict.

A conviction under § 49.04 can be supported by evidence that the defendant was intoxicated while driving in a public place.

Perez v. State · filed 2010-01-27

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Perez was intoxicated while driving in a public place.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Bridges v. State · filed 2010-02-11(a)

A person commits DWI when he operates a vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. ... Applying the appropriate standard of review, (footnote: 4) we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction.

Section 49.04(a) supports a DWI conviction when the evidence shows the driver was intoxicated while driving, even if he was not operating the vehicle when later found unconscious.

Barrera v. State · filed 2010-03-05(a)

It may well be as appellant suggested; he was not operating the vehicle when he was found unconscious. Yet, that is not something we need decide; there is more than ample evidence to show that he had lost the normal use of his physical and mental skills due to his prior ingestion of methamphetamine as he drove to the location where others eventually found him.

Section 49.04 permits a conviction when the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove while intoxicated under either statutory definition of intoxication.

Guardiola v. State · filed 2010-03-23

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated, under either definition of the term, when he drove the Impala down Gail Road, lost control, and crashed into the tree.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated; erratic driving and physical signs of impairment can support a conviction.

Marron v. State · filed 2010-04-20(a)

A person commits the crime of DWI if he “is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle.” Tex. Penal Code § 49.04(a). ... The deputies’ testimony of appellant’s erratic driving, difficulty in exiting his car, slurred speech, blood-shot eyes, unsteady balance, and smell of alcohol all establish that appellant’s mental and physical faculties were impaired. ... We find the evidence to be legally and factually sufficient to support appellant’s conviction and overrule appellant’s third and fourth issues.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Cowger v. State · filed 2010-01-29(a)

A person commits the crime of DWI if he ―is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle.‖ TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a) (Vernon 2003). ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict.

Section 49.04 prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; circumstantial evidence can establish those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gonzales v. State · filed 2010-10-27

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he operates a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2008). ... Based on all the evidence, the evidence is legally sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

A conviction under § 49.04(a) is supported when the evidence permits a rational jury to find the elements of driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Clark Ken Hussman v. State · filed 2010-12-01(a)

It is inarguable that when all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04 prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Wreyford v. State · filed 2011-02-16

Under a hypothetically correct jury charge, Wreyford committed the offense of DWI if (1) she (2) operated (3) a motor vehicle (4) in a public place (5) while intoxicated. ... The evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction when the evidence is sufficient to show the defendant drove while intoxicated.

Leifeste v. State · filed 2011-03-02(a)

When we consider the elements of the offense and the evidence, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Leifeste was driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated in a public place; the cumulative force of the evidence can support a conviction.

Garcia v. State · filed 2011-03-31(a)

In order to convict a defendant of driving while intoxicated, the state must prove that (1) the defendant (2) operated (3) a motor vehicle (4) while intoxicated (5) in a public place. ... We conclude the cumulative force of all the incriminating evidence sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction when considered in the light most favorable to the verdict.

Section 49.04(a) does not require evidence of the time between an accident and the arrival of law enforcement when other evidence allows a reasonable fact finder to conclude the defendant drove while intoxicated.

Gay C. Davis A/K/A Gay Carolyn Davis v. State · filed 2011-06-02(a)

In this case, as in Kuciemba , evidence establishing the amount of time that passed between the accident and arrival of law enforcement is not essential to allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that appellant drove while intoxicated.

Intoxication at the scene of a single-vehicle accident, together with the collision and absence of skid marks, can support a finding that the driver was intoxicated while operating the vehicle.

Scillitani v. State · filed 2011-07-21(a)

Based upon the guidance provided by the Kuciemba court, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence that alcohol impaired the driver's normal mental or physical faculties can support a conviction.

May v. State · filed 2011-07-28(a)

A person commits an offense if he is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the jury could have found that May was intoxicated by not having the normal use of his mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction based on circumstantial evidence that a person operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Washington v. State · filed 2011-08-02(a)

We hold that there was ample evidence supporting both that appellant was the operator of the vehicle and that he operated it shortly before the first officer found him while he was intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; circumstantial evidence can establish that the person was intoxicated while driving.

Calip v. State · filed 2011-08-03(a)

After reviewing all of the evidence, we hold that the evidence, together with reasonable inferences therefrom, is legally sufficient to show that Appellant was operating the crashed vehicle while intoxicated.

Section 49.04 makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and circumstantial evidence can support a finding of intoxication.

Ruiz v. State · filed 2011-09-14

Accordingly, we conclude that a factfinder could reasonably have found that Ruiz operated his motor vehicle at a time when he did not have the normal use of his mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into the body.

Section 49.04(a)’s intoxication element may be proved by observed signs of impairment even when the defendant offers a head injury as an alternative explanation.

Donna Jean Dill A/K/A Donna Zill v. State · filed 2011-10-06(a)

Although appellant’s behavior during the traffic stop may have been consistent with a head injury, her behavior also constitutes recognized evidence of intoxication. ... Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we hold that the evidence was sufficient for a rational fact finder to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated at the time she was stopped by Trooper Petrillo.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction when the evidence allows a rational factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Kiffe v. State · filed 2011-10-13(a)

Reviewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Kiffe was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; a conviction is supported when a rational fact finder could find those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rodarte v. State · filed 2011-11-16(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he is intoxicated while operating a vehicle in a public place. ... Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that any rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04 requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Whorton v. State · filed 2011-12-09

Under the hypothetically correct jury charge, Whorton committed the offense of DWI if (1) she (2) operated (3) a motor vehicle (4) in a public place (5) while intoxicated. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04 (West Supp. 2011). ... This evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find the elements of DWI beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of alcohol-related impairment can support a conviction.

Boone v. State · filed 2012-02-23(a)

Myers concluded that Appellant was intoxicated. The record reflects that Appellant was operating the vehicle on a public street in downtown Fort Worth. Shiderly concluded that Appellant had lost the normal use of his mental or physical faculties as a result of the consumption of alcohol. Finally, the jury was able to observe Appellant on the videotape from the intoxilyzer room. Applying the appropriate standard of review, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Hamilton v. State · filed 2012-02-23(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense of driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Campbell v. State · filed 2012-03-13(a)

To establish the offense of driving while intoxicated, the State must prove the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... The evidence of appellant's guilt is not insufficient under either of the theories he asserts.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; officers’ observations and driving evidence can support a conviction.

Garcia v. State · filed 2012-03-21(a)

Accordingly, the State was required to present evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and that Garcia had been previously convicted of two ... prior driving while intoxicated offenses. ... When the evidence is viewed under the applicable standard of review, it is clear the evidence was legally sufficient to support Garcia’s conviction for driving while intoxicated.

A jury may find intoxication under § 49.04(a) from evidence such as erratic driving, alcohol odor, bloodshot eyes, refusal of a breath test, and an officer’s opinion.

Arzate v. State · filed 2012-05-16(a)

Furthermore, the State was required to prove that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place, TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2011), and that he had twice before been convicted of the same offense. ... Given this authority and the evidence described above, we conclude that the record contains some evidence upon which a rational factfinder could conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant was driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; observations of the driver’s behavior and the driver’s admissions can support a finding of intoxication.

Sarabia v. State · filed 2012-07-05(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated “if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2011). ... We, therefore, hold that the evidence is sufficient to support Sarabia’s conviction and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of impairment can establish intoxication.

Martin v. State · filed 2012-07-27(a)

The State was required to prove that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2011). ... Based on the above evidence, we conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence of intoxication under the theory of impairment.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and sufficient evidence of intoxication can support a conviction.

Pina v. State · filed 2012-08-23(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict as we are required to do, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence from which rational jurors could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Pina drove a vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of impaired faculties from alcohol or drugs can establish intoxication.

Spurlock v. State of Texas · filed 2013-01-18(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant operated his pickup in a public place while "not having the normal use of [his] mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into [his] body."

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and credited officer testimony can establish the offense.

Cox v. State · filed 2013-05-01(a)

If the jury believed Rendon’s testimony, as it obviously did, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Cox operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence that the driver had been drinking and was found asleep in a running vehicle stopped in the roadway was sufficient.

John v. State · filed 2013-05-08(a)

The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while being intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and a conviction may rest on evidence of impairment without a blood test.

Lovett v. State · filed 2013-06-25(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; intoxication may be proved through either statutory means.

Allison Holiday Coward v. State · filed 2013-07-17(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... The evidence is legally sufficient to prove Appellant’s intoxication under both means of proof set out in the statute.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and circumstantial evidence can support a conviction.

Jensen, Cherie Rosann v. State · filed 2013-07-18(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... We conclude the evidence in the record is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction.

Section 49.04 makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence that Rodriguez drove after drinking, showed signs of intoxication, and had a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit was sufficient to support his conviction.

Rodriguez v. State · filed 2013-08-14

A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place, and the offense is a third-degree felony if the person commits DWI and has had two prior DWI convictions. Tex. Penal Code §§ 49.04, .09(b)(2). ... Viewing the entirety of the evidence in this record in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the DWI third offense ... beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; intoxication may be proved through impairment or blood alcohol concentration.

Edwards v. State · filed 2013-11-21(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he (1) was intoxicated (2) while operating a motor vehicle (3) in a public place. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2013). ... After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated. The evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intoxication under either the impairment theory or the per se theory.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Smith v. State · filed 2013-11-25(a)

As noted, a person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... Based on our review of the evidence presented to the jury, we conclude the fact finder reasonably could have found each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) permits a conviction when alcohol deprives a person of normal mental or physical faculties while operating a motor vehicle in public; reckless driving need not be shown.

Dodson v. State · filed 2014-02-03(a)

That he was not seen driving recklessly, dangerously, or otherwise was a factor to be considered by the jury but was not dispositive. Considering all the evidence, we conclude a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not have the normal use of his mental and physical faculties while operating a motor vehicle in public.

Section 49.04 permits a driving while intoxicated conviction when evidence shows the driver was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Cavazos v. State · filed 2014-02-06(a)

Perales gave unobjected-to testimony that appellant’s blood alcohol concentration would have been above the legal limit about an hour before he submitted the breath samples. This evidence alone was sufficient to convict appellant.

Section 49.04(a) supports a DWI conviction when a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Maldonado v. State · filed 2014-02-20(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and deferring to the jury’s implicit resolution of conflicting inferences in favor of a finding that appellant was intoxicated, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Section 49.04 makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and evidence of erratic driving, failed field sobriety tests, and an officer’s observations can support a conviction.

Mickey John McCormick v. State · filed 2014-03-06

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04 (West Supp. 2013). ... Thus, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction.

Section 49.04(a) permits circumstantial evidence to establish that a person operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Marroquin v. State · filed 2014-03-28(a)

When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence is sufficient to prove Marroquin operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Section 49.04 permits a DWI conviction when the evidence allows a rational jury to find that the defendant drove while intoxicated.

Henderson v. State · filed 2013-10-23

We conclude that from these basic facts, it was reasonable for a rational jury to find that Henderson was driving while intoxicated. Because the evidence is legally sufficient to support Henderson’s conviction, we overrule Henderson’s sole point of error.

Section 49.04 permits a DWI conviction when the fact finder can reasonably find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Schroeder v. State · filed 2014-01-14(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment, we conclude a factfinder reasonably could have found the essential elements of a third-time offense for driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; the State may use circumstantial evidence to link intoxication to the time of driving.

Suarez v. State · filed 2014-05-30(a)

To obtain a conviction for DWI, the State must prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. PENAL § 49.04(a). ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, we find that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found Appellant guilty of the offense of DWI.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; an accident, poor field sobriety performance, and recent drinking can support a finding of intoxication.

Gonzales v. State · filed 2014-06-12(a)

Given Appellant’s involvement in the accident, his poor performance on the field sobriety tests, and his admission of recent drinking, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that Appellant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction when the evidence shows that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while alcohol deprived him of the normal use of mental or physical faculties.

Huffman v. State · filed 2014-07-24(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that it is sufficient to show that Appellant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into his body.

Section 49.04 permits conviction when a rational fact finder could find the intoxication element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Green v. State · filed 2014-06-05

We conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential element of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence of alcohol consumption, signs of intoxication on sobriety tests, and a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 can support a conviction under § 49.04.

O.D. Van Duren, Jr. v. State · filed 2014-11-07

Van Duren admitted to having consumed beer, and his performance on sobriety tests demonstrated signs of intoxication. The toxicology report showed that Van Duren had a blood-alcohol content of 0.15, above the legal limit. On this evidence, a jury rationally could have found that Van Duren was driving under the influence and found that he was guilty of driving while intoxicated. We therefore hold the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction.

Evidence that a driver lost normal control of her mental or physical faculties can support a conviction for driving while intoxicated under Section 49.04(a).

Tammy Turner Bingham v. State · filed 2014-11-25(a)

And in the video recordings we reviewed as part of the appellate record, Appellant demonstrated indisputably that she had lost the normal control of her mental or physical faculties. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.01(2); 49.04(a) (West 2011 & West Supp. 2014). Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence that Appellant was driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04 permits a driving while intoxicated conviction when the evidence supports a reasonable inference that the defendant was intoxicated while driving.

Berdan II v. State · filed 2015-01-22

This evidence allowed the jury to draw the reasonable inference that Berdan was intoxicated at the time he was driving; thus, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Evidence of intoxication can support a DWI conviction under § 49.04(a) even when the proof is circumstantial.

Garcia v. State · filed 2015-05-12(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code § 49.04(a). ... When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of felony DWI beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) requires intoxication while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; sufficient evidence of those elements supports a conviction.

Jackson v. State · filed 2015-05-28(a)

A person commits DWI if he “is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). ... In summary, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for DWI.

Circumstantial evidence can prove intoxication under § 49.04(a).

Clifton Crews Hoyt v. State · filed 2015-06-04(a)

In light of all of the evidence previously summarized as well as the reasonable inferences that the district court could have made from that evidence and given our standard of review for legal-sufficiency challenges, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the district court’s determination that Hoyt was intoxicated.

An officer’s testimony about signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests can support a conviction for driving while intoxicated under Section 49.04(a).

Kirkpatrick v. State · filed 2015-08-06(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated “if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” PENAL § 49.04(a). ... We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction because a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt based upon Officer Amezola’s testimony.

An officer’s observations and testimony can be evidence of intoxication under § 49.04(a).

Shaw Jr. v. State · filed 2015-08-06(a)

Trooper Blue’s testimony is probative evidence of intoxication.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

James v. State · filed 2015-08-26(a)

The State had the burden to prove that Bearden was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2014). ... Regardless of whether or not the HGN evidence is considered, we conclude that a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Campos v. State · filed 2015-11-04(a)

The State had the burden to prove that Campos was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2014). ... Regardless of whether or not the HGN evidence is considered, we conclude that a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; HGN test evidence is not required to sustain a conviction.

Campos, Christopher · filed 2015-12-10(a)

The State had the burden to prove that Campos was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2014). ... Regardless of whether or not the HGN evidence is considered, we conclude that a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sufficient evidence of intoxication while operating a motor vehicle can support a § 49.04(a) conviction.

Rick Lee Bates v. State · filed 2016-07-13(a)

Considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated. As a result, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Evidence sufficient to prove the elements of driving while intoxicated can support a § 49.04(a) conviction.

Newberry v. State · filed 2016-07-27(a)

We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Newberry committed the offense of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) allows a DWI conviction when the evidence permits a rational fact finder to find intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

Campbell v. State · filed 2016-10-27(a)

A person is guilty of DWI “if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2016). ... After considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and deferring to the trial court’s determinations regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence, we hold that a rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated at the time he was stopped by Officer Holley.

Section 49.04(a)'s intoxication element may be proved under an impairment theory by the cumulative force of the evidence.

Williams v. State · filed 2017-04-13(a)

Considering the cumulative force of all the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated under the impairment theory of intoxication.

Sufficient evidence that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated supports a conviction under § 49.04(a).

Oringderff v. State · filed 2017-04-24(a)

Section 49.04(a) of the Penal Code states that “a person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” ... Accordingly, the record supports ...the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04(a) requires the State to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Daniel v. State · filed 2017-08-10(a)

To obtain a conviction for DWI, the State must prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. PENAL § 49.04(a). ... We have reviewed the record and hold that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the offense of driving while intoxicated.

Evidence of impaired faculties during operation can support a conviction under § 49.04(a).

Salazar v. State · filed 2017-12-21(a)

This evidence would allow a rational trier of fact to find that Salazar operated a motor vehicle without the normal use of his mental or physical faculties, which are the only elements challenged by Salazar.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; the evidence in Walker supported a finding of intoxication while driving.

Walker v. State · filed 2018-03-01(a)

A person commits DWI if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a). ... From these facts, the jury could have rationally found that Walker was intoxicated while driving.

Section 49.04(a) requires evidence linking a defendant’s intoxication to the time he operated a motor vehicle.

Villalobos v. State · filed 2018-05-22(a)

For the evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated, there must be a temporal link between a defendant’s intoxication and his driving.

Section 49.04(a) requires evidence linking the defendant’s intoxication to the time the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place.

Griffis v. State · filed 2018-09-19(a)

In order for the evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated, there must be a temporal link between a defendant’s intoxication and his driving. ... Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have found Appellant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Coreas v. State · filed 2018-11-30(a)

A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a). ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and accounting for the factfinder’s duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, we conclude any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 49.04 requires proof that an intoxicated person operated a motor vehicle in a public place; an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more in an analyzed specimen makes the offense a Class A misdemeanor.

Clifford v. State · filed 2018-12-13(a), (d)

And given Officer Borel’s and Officer Posey’s testimony that the residential street in front of Crystal’s house was a public place, and the parties’ stipulation that an analysis of the specimen of Appellant’s blood showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.220, a rational factfinder could have concluded both that Appellant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated and that an analysis of a specimen of his blood showed an alcohol concentration level of 0.15 or more at the time the analysis was performed.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; circumstantial evidence can establish who drove and whether the driver was intoxicated at the time.

Roberts v. State · filed 2019-05-15(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated “if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a). ... From this evidence, the jury could draw a reasonable inference that Roberts was driving the car. ... Accordingly, based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could infer Roberts was intoxicated when he was driving the car.

Section 49.04(a) supports a driving-while-intoxicated conviction when sufficient evidence shows that medication caused the driver to lose the normal use of mental and physical faculties.

De La Garza v. State · filed 2019-06-27(a)

Because there is legally sufficient evidence that the medication could and did cause appellant to lose the normal use of her mental and physical faculties, we ... overrule appellant’s first issue and affirm her conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04 requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Viers v. State · filed 2020-09-09

The elements of the offense of driving while intoxicated are (a) a person (b) is intoxicated (c) while operating (d) a motor vehicle (e) in a public place.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof of intoxication while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; circumstantial evidence may support a finding of intoxication while driving.

Hernandez v. State · filed 2020-09-30(a)

The combined and cumulative force of this evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports the jury’s finding that appellant was intoxicated while driving.

Section 49.04(a) allows a driving while intoxicated conviction based on evidence of impairment, even without blood test results.

Reich v. State · filed 2020-11-30(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated because a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt based upon Corporal Sheedy’s testimony.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction based on circumstantial evidence that the driver lacked normal use of mental or physical faculties.

Young v. State · filed 2020-12-30(a)

A person commits the offense of DWI if the State proves the person operated a motor vehicle in a public place without having the normal use of the person’s mental or physical faculties by reason of introducing alcohol or another substance into the person’s body. ... We conclude the evidence in Young’s trial contains more than enough support for the jury’s conclusion that Young committed the DWI at issue in her appeal.

A conviction under § 49.04 is supported when the combined evidence allows a reasonable jury to find intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robles v. the State of Texas · filed 2021-10-21

Taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for felony driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; the combined force of circumstantial evidence can support a finding of intoxication.

McMurray v. the State of Texas · filed 2021-12-01(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he was: (1) operating a motor vehicle; (2) in a public place; (3) while intoxicated. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support McMurray’s conviction for the offense of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of impaired driving and behavior can support that finding.

Gonzalez v. the State of Texas · filed 2021-12-06(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... Based on a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of alcohol-related impairment can support a conviction even when breath test results are below 0.08.

Floyd v. the State of Texas · filed 2022-05-24(a)

A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. ... Having reviewed the evidence, we conclude it is sufficient for the trial court to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had lost the normal use of her physical or mental faculties due to the introduction of alcohol into her body.

Section 49.04(a)'s intoxication element can be proved by evidence that the driver lacked normal use of mental or physical faculties, even when a later blood alcohol test is below 0.08.

Aguirre v. the State of Texas · filed 2022-08-10(a)

A rational juror could have found Appellant was intoxicated under the subjective definition; therefore, the evidence is legally sufficient.

Section 49.04 permits a Class A driving-while-intoxicated conviction when evidence supports intoxication and a blood test shows an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or higher.

Gill v. the State of Texas · filed 2022-08-18(a), (d)

Because a rational factfinder, having considered the evidence presented at trial, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gill was intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 or higher, we overrule Gill’s sole issue.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction when the combined evidence allows a rational jury to find intoxication at the time of driving.

Brumley v. the State of Texas · filed 2022-12-20(a)

Based on this evidence, any rational jury could have found that Brumley was intoxicated at the time he was driving.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and evidence of impaired faculties and a blood-alcohol level of 0.251 can support a conviction.

Reaves v. the State of Texas · filed 2022-12-22(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a). ... Based on a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Earnest Dewayne Clayton v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-01-11(a)

Considering, as we must, all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, see Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Ramjattansingh, 548 S.W.3d at 546, we conclude a rational fact-finder could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clayton operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; later breath-test results and other evidence can establish intoxication at the time of driving.

Aguilera v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-03-08(a)

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the jury could have rationally found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was intoxicated at the time of driving the truck.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; an officer’s observations and field sobriety tests can support a finding of intoxication.

Balderrama v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-05-24(a)

We hold the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict. A person commits the offense of felony DWI if she is “intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place” and she has two or more previous convictions relating to “the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.” ... This evidence was sufficient to allow a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Balderrama was intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) permits a DWI conviction when circumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference that alcohol and a drug caused the driver to lose the normal use of mental or physical faculties.

Toler v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-06-16(a)

Based on this evidence, we find that a reasonable jury could infer that Toler’s loss of the normal use of his mental or physical faculties was the result of the introduction of alcohol and citalopram into his body.

Circumstantial evidence can support a conviction under § 49.04(a) when it permits a rational jury to find that the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Rodriguez-Portillo v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-08-31(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence that a prescription drug impaired the driver's normal faculties can establish intoxication.

Bode v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-08-31(a)

A person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code § 49.04(a). ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude it was sufficient to prove that Bode was intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; evidence of impaired speech, poor field sobriety performance, and refusal to provide a sample can support the intoxication element.

Bledsoe v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-12-07(a)

This evidence is sufficient proof from which a jury could have concluded that Bledsoe was intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) makes it an offense to operate a vehicle in a public place while intoxicated.

Stature v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-07-18(a)

A person commits the offense of DWI if the person is intoxicated while operating a vehicle in a public place. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a). ... We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support Stature’s DWI conviction and that the trial court did not err by overruling his motion for directed verdict.

Section 49.04 requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; a specimen analysis showing an alcohol concentration of at least 0.15 makes the offense a Class A misdemeanor.

Shackelford v. the State of Texas · filed 2024-08-22(a), (d)

For the offense of driving while intoxicated, the State had the burden of proving that appellant was (1) operating a motor vehicle (2) in a public place (3) while intoxicated. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a). In this case, the State had the additional burden of proving appellant had a blood-alcohol-concentration level (BAC) of 0.15 or more. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(d). ... We conclude that a rational jury could have found the essential elements of driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence can support a conviction under § 49.04 when a jury resolves conflicting witness testimony in favor of finding DWI.

Martinez v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-06-18(a)

Because the jury’s resolution of the conflicting evidence in this case turned on its determination of the credibility and weight to be afforded to witness testimony, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s conviction of Appellant for DWI.

A conviction under the ordinary DWI provision of § 49.04 is a Class B misdemeanor.

Joseph Eddy Bivens v. State · filed 2020-03-24(b)

A conviction under Section 49.04 of the Texas Penal Code is a Class B misdemeanor.

Section 49.04(b) requires at least seventy-two hours of confinement for a Class B misdemeanor DWI conviction.

Price v. State · filed 2019-12-05(b)

Yet, Section 49.04(b) is a specific statute relating to the punishment of DWI offenses like Price’s, and it mandates that the minimum punishment for a Class B misdemeanor DWI is a “term of confinement of [seventy-two] hours.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(b).

Section 49.04(b) requires a minimum 72-hour jail term for driving while intoxicated; a jury verdict that omits it requires a new punishment hearing.

Moffett v. State · filed 2007-06-21(b)

However, the jury’s verdict did not conform to the appropriate range of punishment because it did not include the 72-hour minimum jail term applicable to this offense by virtue of Section 49.04(b) of the Texas Penal Code.

Section 49.04(b) classifies driving while intoxicated as a Class B misdemeanor unless subsection (c) or Section 49.09 applies.

Weaver v. State · filed 2001-09-14(b)

Accordingly, we reform the judgment to reflect the conviction of Weaver for a misdemeanor class B driving while intoxicated offense under Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 49.04(b).

Prior DWI convictions alleged to elevate DWI to a felony are elements of the offense under section 49.04(b).

Mann v. State · filed 1999-12-16(b)

We reject appellant's argument that a DWI with three prior DWI convictions alleged to elevate the offense to a felony is a misdemeanor at its inception. The prior convictions are elements of the primary offense under article 49.04(b) of the Texas Penal Code.

Section 49.04(b) makes DWI a misdemeanor unless prior convictions under § 49.09(b) elevate it to a separate felony offense.

Barfield v. State · filed 1999-06-17(b)

Because a single offense under section 49.04 is a misdemeanor if not enhanced to a felony offense with evidence of prior convictions under section 49.09(b), that misdemeanor is not triable in the district court.

Section 49.04(c) requires proof that the driver had an open container of alcohol in immediate possession before its six-day minimum confinement applies; evidence of a bottle in the vehicle without proof it was open is insufficient.

Reynosa v. State · filed 1999-04-29(c)

After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence was not legally sufficient for the trial court to have found that appellant’s vehicle contained an open container.

Section 49.04(b) classifies driving while intoxicated as a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by no more than 180 days in jail.

Galvan v. State · filed 1998-11-18(b)

Galvan was charged with a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by confinement in jail up to 180 days and a fine up to $2,000. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(b) (Vernon 1994); id. § 12.22. Galvan was sentenced, however, to one year in jail, probated for two years, plus a $500 fine. As the State acknowledges, the jail sentence exceeds the statutory limit.

Section 49.04(b) makes DWI a Class B misdemeanor with a minimum confinement term of 72 hours.

Buckhout, Michael David v. State · filed 2004-09-02(b)

Section 49.04 of the Texas Penal Code provides that a DWI offense is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of confinement of 72 hours, or three days.

Section 49.04(b) sets a mandatory minimum punishment of seventy-two hours’ confinement for DWI.

Nelson v. State · filed 2004-08-31(b)

The offense of DWI carries a mandatory minimum punishment of seventy-two hours’ confinement and the possibility of a fine not to exceed $2,000.

Section 49.04(b) requires at least 72 hours of confinement for first-offense driving while intoxicated without an open-container finding.

Harvey v. State · filed 2005-10-13(b)

Our Penal Code provides that, in the absence of a finding of an open container, a first-offense driving while intoxicated “is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of confinement of 72 hours.” Tex. Pen. Code § 49.04(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005).

Section 49.04(b) classifies first DWI as a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Seeker v. State · filed 2006-03-08(b)

A first DWI offense is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and up to a $2,000 fine. Tex. Pen.Code Ann. §§ 12.22, 49.04 (Vernon 2003). ... Therefore, the record does not show that appellant received either a void sentence or a sentence outside the punishment range for the offense for which he was convicted.

A DWI conviction remains an offense under section 49.04 when prior convictions enhance it to a felony under section 49.09.

Chughtai v. State · filed 2016-07-25

Accordingly, the February 25, 2000 conviction for felony DWI was an offense under section 49.04 of the penal code, enhanced to a felony of the third degree under section 49.09 by two prior convictions for DWI, see Bell v. State, 201 S.W.3d 708, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (for purposes of section 49.09, “‘offense relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated’ means (for purposes of this case) an ‘offense under Section 49.04’”), and the Dallas County district court did not have authority to set aside that conviction and dismiss the indictment.

Section 49.04(a) makes each incident of driving while intoxicated an allowable unit of prosecution.

Licano v. State · filed 2021-02-11(a)

The allowable unit of prosecution for DWI is each incident of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04 requires intoxication while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; a DWI conviction can coexist with an obstructing-a-highway conviction because each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not.

Comperry v. State · filed 2012-07-10(a)

As a comparison of the elements confirms, a DWI does not necessarily constitute a violation of the obstructing-a-highway offense. Moreover, each requires the proof of facts not required by the other; for example, DWI requires intoxication whereas obstructing a highway requires a culpable mental state. Thus, convictions for both offenses could have been simultaneously true and would not have been forbidden by the double jeopardy clause.

Section 49.04 requires intoxication while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; consuming alcohol while driving alone does not establish intoxication.

Galvan v. State · filed 1999-05-26

The elements of driving while intoxicated include: 1) a person; 2) is intoxicated; 3) while operating a motor vehicle; 4) in a public place. ... Thus, each offense requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.

Driving while intoxicated under § 49.04, when combined with the prior convictions required for felony DWI, is a separate offense from intoxication assault and may be punished for the same incident.

Benson, Yusulf Shaheed · filed 2015-04-15(a)

The question in this case is whether intoxication assault and felony DWI (driving while intoxicated) are the same offense for double-jeopardy purposes when they arise out of the same transaction. We hold that they are not.

Section 49.04 defines DWI as a distinct offense from marijuana possession, so a prior possession conviction does not bar a DWI prosecution on double jeopardy grounds.

Ex Parte: Victor Manuel Maguregui · filed 2016-10-31(a), (d)

Even a cursory examination of these elements show no overlap, other than the actor under both charges would be Maguregui. One charge requires proof of doing something--operating a motor vehicle on a public road (while intoxicated). The other requires proof of possessing something. This argument fails the same elements test of the Blockburger as two distinct crimes were charged.

Section 49.04 allows the State to prosecute a minor for driving while intoxicated despite the separate DUI statute for minors.

Findlay v. State · filed 1999-12-09

Here, the State properly exercised its discretion to prosecute appellant under the DWI statute, rather than the DUI statute.

A jury charge on the 0.15 alcohol concentration element of § 49.04(d) is proper when it tracks the statute as charged.

Jarvis v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-08-26(d)

Finally, the jury charge here, like in Johnson, properly tracks the statute under which Appellant was charged.

In a Section 49.04(a) prosecution, a jury instruction cannot separately define “normal use” in a way that changes the statutory definition of intoxication.

Murphy v. State · filed 2001-04-05(a)

Its inclusion was an attempt to alter, change, or give a different interpretation to the statutory definition of “intoxicated,” an essential element of the offense charged. The instruction, in fact, offered to the jury two different definitions of an essential element of the offense. The complained-of charge was confusing, misleading, and a misstatement of the law. It was an erroneous charge.

Driving while intoxicated is a single offense with alternative ways to prove intoxication; the jury charge may state those alternatives in the disjunctive.

Mireles v. State · filed 2001-08-16(a)

The definition of "intoxicated" in the DWI statute sets forth alternate means of committing a single offense and not separate and distinct offenses.

A DWI jury charge should omit the 0.08 alcohol concentration theory when no evidence supports it; including it may be harmless if it causes no harm.

Lambert v. State · filed 2006-02-28(a)

No evidence was introduced to show that Appellant had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. ... Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court should have sustained defense counsel’s objection to the language in the charge relating to alcohol concentration. ... Therefore, we conclude that the error was harmless.

In a DWI prosecution under § 49.04(a), a medical condition that may explain apparent impairment does not require a separate medical excuse jury instruction.

Burkett v. State · filed 2005-08-04(a)

Burkett’s medical excuse instruction is not a statutorily-enumerated defense, ... and merely serves to negate the impairment element of the State’s case. Therefore, the trial court properly denied Burkett’s requested instruction.

For a DWI charge under § 49.04, proof of loss of either mental or physical faculties can support conviction even when the information alleges loss of both.

Zamora v. State · filed 2010-02-11

Furthermore, the loss of physical versus mental ability is not a separate element of the offense. Bradford v. State , 230 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Therefore, whether loss of both faculties or just one has been proven does not affect whether the offense itself has been committed. See Zanghetti , 618 S.W.2d at 387 (quoting 1 Branch’s Ann. P.C., 2nd Ed. Sec. 523). Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in refusing appellant’s requested instruction.

Section 49.04 supplies no special defense for an alternate cause of lost faculties; the ordinary intoxication instruction lets the jury consider that evidence.

Huff v. State · filed 2010-11-29

Also absent is an offense-specific defense in the nature of the proposed instruction. See id. § 49.04. ... The substance of appellant’s proposed instruction was adequately addressed in the jury charge.

Section 49.04(a) leaves “operate” undefined, so a jury must be free to apply its common meaning without an instruction that limits what evidence may establish operating a vehicle.

Kirsch, Scott Alan · filed 2012-01-25(a)

Because the trial court improperly impinged on the jury’s fact-finding authority by limiting the jurors’ understanding of what evidence could constitute “operating,” we hold that the trial court erred by defining that term in its charge to the jury.

For a Section 49.04 charge alleging impairment, an abstract jury instruction defining intoxication by alcohol concentration does not broaden the charge when the application paragraph limits conviction to the alleged impairment theory.

Crenshaw, Bradley Kelton · filed 2012-09-26(a)

In this case, the per se definition of intoxication was only in the abstract section of the jury charge, and it was not incorporated into the application paragraph. The application paragraph tracked the language of the information, which alleged the subjective theory of intoxication, and thus restricted the jury’s consideration to only those allegations contained in the information.

Section 49.04(a) defines DWI as intoxication while operating a motor vehicle in a public place, making it a lesser included offense of intoxication manslaughter.

Henry v. State · filed 2007-01-11(a)

Because intoxication manslaughter includes all of the elements of DWI, intoxication manslaughter includes the proof required to establish the offense of driving while intoxicated. Thus, the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated is a lesser included-offense of intoxication manslaughter.

Section 49.04(a) DWI is a lesser-included offense of subsequent-offense DWI because the latter also requires a previous conviction.

Dugger v. State · filed 2001-08-30(a)

Unenhanced DWI is clearly a lesser-included offense of subsequent-offense DWI.

Driving while intoxicated is a lesser-included offense of intoxication manslaughter, and a jury instruction is required when evidence permits a rational finding that the intoxication did not cause the death.

Ramirez v. State · filed 2006-06-29

Driving while intoxicated requires that "the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place." Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04 (Vernon 2003). Intoxication manslaughter includes the elements of driving while intoxicated along with the additional requirement that the intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake. Accordingly, the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated is a lesser-included offense of intoxication manslaughter.

Section 49.04 defines driving while intoxicated as being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; the offense is included within intoxication manslaughter.

Ramirez v. State · filed 2006-11-15

Intoxication manslaughter includes the elements of driving while intoxicated along with the additional requirement that the intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake. Accordingly, the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated is a lesser-included offense of intoxication manslaughter.

Driving while intoxicated under § 49.04(a) is a lesser included offense of intoxication manslaughter because it does not require causing a death by reason of intoxication.

Mole v. State · filed 2009-04-23(a)

Regarding the first step in our analysis, the misdemeanor offense of DWI is a lesser included offense of intoxication manslaughter.

Section 49.04 misdemeanor DWI is a lesser-included offense of felony DWI.

Reyes v. State · filed 2013-01-28

Misdemeanor DWI is a lesser-included offense of felony DWI.

Section 49.04 supplies the DWI elements necessarily established by a felony DWI verdict, allowing conviction of a lesser misdemeanor DWI offense when only one prior conviction is proved.

Strehl v. State · filed 2016-02-05

Here, in convicting Strehl of DWI third or more, the jury must have necessarily found every element necessary to convict him of class A misdemeanor DWI as set forth in Sections 49.04 and 49.09(a) of the Texas Penal Code.

Section 49.04(d) requires proof of an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more for Class A driving while intoxicated; Class B driving while intoxicated is a lesser-included offense.

Ex parte Navarro · filed 2017-04-06(d)

The greater offense is the Class A misdemeanor, and it requires proof of an aggravating element. To convict a person of the Class A misdemeanor, the State must show, in addition to the proof required of the Class B misdemeanor, that the person had an alcohol concentration level of 0.15 or more at the time of his blood draw.

Section 49.04(d)'s Class A DWI offense includes the Class B offense under subsection (b) as a lesser included offense.

Christen Cecilia Crawford v. State · filed 2018-01-31(d)

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, a Class B misdemeanor under Penal Code § 49.04(b). That offense is a lesser included offense of the Class A misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated with an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more under Penal Code § 49.04(d). ... We hold that the State effectively abandoned the charged offense in favor of prosecuting the lesser included offense.

Section 49.04 defines DWI broadly enough that attempted DWI is not a separate criminal offense under Texas law.

Strong v. State · filed 2002-09-30(a)

We conclude the legislature did not intend to create an offense of attempted DWI when it moved the DWI provisions from the revised civil statutes to the penal code, and we hold there is no such legally cognizable criminal offense under Texas law.

Section 49.04(a) requires evidence linking intoxication to the time of driving; the circumstantial evidence in this case did not establish that link.

the State of Texas v. Espinosa · filed 2022-05-10(a)

To establish that appellant committed the offense of DWI, the State is required to prove that appellant was “intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a). ... The circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish a temporal link between appellee’s intoxication and her driving.

Section 49.04(a) requires proof that a person was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place, and circumstantial evidence can establish the link between intoxication and driving.

Frater v. State · filed 2020-10-30(a)

Based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that the trial court could have reasonably found, beyond a reasonable doubt, a temporal link between Appellant’s intoxication and his driving.

Section 49.04(a) requires intoxication while operating a motor vehicle, and circumstantial evidence can establish the timing.

Quiroz v. State · filed 2013-06-25(a)

In order to support a finding that a defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, there must be a temporal link between the defendant’s intoxication and his driving. ... The jury may have reasonably inferred that Quiroz was intoxicated when he last operated his truck to drive it the last half mile to the dollar store.

Section 49.04(a) requires a temporal link between intoxication and driving; observations of intoxication immediately after driving can establish that link.

Emale, Mayanio John v. State · filed 2012-11-30(a)

This testimony, if credited by the fact finder, is sufficient to create a direct temporal link between Emale’s intoxication and his driving of a vehicle.

Section 49.04(a) prohibits operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; circumstantial evidence can show that operation and intoxication occurred at the same time.

Sorrells v. State · filed 2012-07-11(a)

Viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s ruling, we conclude that it is sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sorrells had violated his probation by committing the offense of driving while intoxicated.

Section 49.04(a) requires evidence linking intoxication to the time the defendant operated a motor vehicle, though the exact time of driving need not be proved.

Kanayo Eugene Ubesie, Jr. v. State · filed 2012-06-11(a)

This temporal link between operation and intoxication is sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have reasonably found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle.