that he was so intoxicated that he could not form a specific intent. Moreover, some of Petitioner’s actions on the night in question are inconsistent with the intoxication defense. To begin with, when Petitioner was attacked and stabbed after leaving the mall, he was able to recognize the gender of his two attackers, escape by running (not walking) away from them, and then locate Ms. Butler’s house on foot in the dead of night while severely injured. Surely this was no easy task, and his ability to complete it, immediately after having consumed all the alcohol that he claims to have consumed, is flatly inconsistent with his assertion that he was so extremely intoxicated that he was unable to form a specific intent. See Kreijanovsky v. State, 706 P.2d 541, 544 (Okla.Crim.App.1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. Davis, 81 Ohio App.3d 706, 612
recognizing defendants right under utah constitution to control his defense and represent himself holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that appellants testimony negated the intoxication defense by demonstrating he was in control of his mental faculties recognizing that giving this instruction where no independent forcible felony is alleged is misleading and circular and effectively negated the only defense to the charge