Staton, Larry James v. State

*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.
Circuit Court for Harford County
Case No. C-12-CR-24-001039
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 1341
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
LARRY JAMES STATON
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 15, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Larry James Staton,
appellant, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired
by alcohol, driving without a license, failing to obey a properly placed traffic control
device, and violating Transportation Article § 21-902 with three prior convictions. 	His
sole claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for
driving under the influence and driving while impaired. For the reasons that follow, we
shall affirm.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask “whether, after reviewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ross v. State, 232
Md. App. 72, 81 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, we “view[]
not just the facts, but ‘all rational inferences that arise from the evidence,’ in the light most
favorable to the” State. Smith v. State, 232 Md. App. 583, 594 (2017) (citation omitted).
In this analysis, “[w]e give ‘due regard to the [fact-finder’s] findings of facts, its resolution
of conflicting evidence, and, significantly, its opportunity to observe and assess the
credibility of witnesses.’” Potts v. State, 231 Md. App. 398, 415 (2016) (citation omitted).
Driving under the influence of alcohol requires proof that “the alcohol that the
person has consumed has ‘substantially impaired the person’s normal coordination.’ By
contrast, driving ‘while impaired’ requires that the alcohol that the person has consumed
‘has impaired [the driver’s] normal coordination to some extent.’” Turner v. State, 181 Md.
App. 477, 490 (2008) (citations omitted).

‒Unreported Opinion‒
2
Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence demonstrated that, at
approximately 12 a.m., Deputy Alex Kanner stopped a vehicle driven by appellant after
observing him braking in an area where drivers generally accelerate and then “swerving”
over the white line at least five times. 	Appellant did not “immediately pull over” after
Deputy Kanner activated his emergency lights, and when asked for his license and
registration, he gave Deputy Kanner a “stared glance” and didn’t initially reach for
anything. 	Deputy Kanner described appellant as having “slow movements,” slurred
speech, and “bloodshot and watery” eyes. Although Deputy Kanner testified that he had
lost his sense of smell due to COVID, another deputy testified that he smelled the odor of
alcohol emanating from appellant during a search of his person.
Deputy Kanner also testified that he noticed a glass of wine in the center cup holder.
When asked whether he and his passenger had been “hav[ing] drinks tonight,” appellant
stated “yeah” and that they were just coming from a restaurant called Moe’s. 	Appellant
was then asked to exit the vehicle and “stumbled” as he did so. During a subsequent search
incident to arrest, appellant was also “swaying a little bit[.]” Appellant declined to do field
sobriety tests. 	After appellant was arrested, he fell asleep in the patrol car for several
minutes as the deputies were completing their investigation, and when one of the deputies
subsequently attempted to speak with him, his eyes would barely open, and he was slurring
his words. 	Appellant also refused a breathalyzer test at the stationhouse following his
arrest, which permitted the jury to infer that he evidenced a consciousness of guilt of
driving under the influence. See Harding v. State, 223 Md. App. 289, 299 (2015).

‒Unreported Opinion‒
3
Appellant first contends that, when rendering its verdict, the court “clearly erred in
finding that [he] admitted to drinking and driving.” Specifically, appellant takes issue with
the court’s finding that he “said [that the glass of wine in the center console] was his.” But
even if we assume that the court’s finding was incorrect, 1 “[t]he issue of legal sufficiency
of the evidence is not concerned with the findings of fact based on the evidence or the
adequacy of the factfindings to support a verdict.” 	Chisum v. State, 227 Md. App. 118,
129 (2016). 	Rather, “[i]t is concerned only, at an earlier pre-deliberative stage, with the
objective sufficiency of the evidence itself to permit the factfinding even to take place.”
Id. at 129-30. 	To be sure, there can be errors in the rendering of the verdict in a bench
trial. But those errors are “different from a challenge to the legal insufficiency of the
evidence” and thus must be “timely preserved[.]” 	Id. at 131 n.2. And because appellant
did not object to the manner in which the trial court rendered its verdict, that issue is not
preserved for appellate review. See Maryland Rule 8-131(a).
Appellant also contends that, irrespective of the court’s findings, there was
insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for driving under the influence and driving
while impaired because the court could “do no more than speculate that [he] was drinking
and that he was under the influence or impaired, and not, as [he] told the police and
testified, just suffering from back pain and tired from working a six-day week.” 	We
1 We note that, contrary to appellant’s contention, the court never made a finding
that appellant had admitted to “drinking and driving,” only that he had admitted to
consuming alcohol. 	And although appellant correctly notes that he did not specifically
admit that he had consumed the wine in the car, he did inform Deputy Kanner that the glass
contained wine, and then immediately admitted to having drinks that night.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
4
disagree. First, there was ample evidence that appellant had consumed alcohol as he told
Deputy Kanner that he had been “hav[ing] drinks tonight[,]” there was a glass of wine in
the center console of his car, there was an odor of alcohol emanating from his person, and
he refused to submit to the breathalyzer test. 	Moreover, the court could reasonably find
that appellant drove his vehicle while his normal coordination was substantially impaired
and, by extension, impaired to some extent by the alcohol he consumed based on the fact
that he swerved his vehicle across the white line five times while driving, failed to
immediately stop after the officer activated his emergency lights, stumbled when exiting
the vehicle, had red and glassy eyes, had slurred speech, and fell asleep in the back of the
patrol car following his arrest. 	Consequently, the State presented sufficient evidence to
sustain his convictions.
JUDGMENTS 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
APPELLANT.