Riley E Harris was found guilty by a jury of failure to stop at a stop sign (OCGA § 40-6-72), failure to maintain lane (OCGA § 40-6-48) and driving under the influence to the extent he was a less safe driver (OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1)). Harris filed a motion for a new trial, which he subsequently amended. The trial court denied Harris’s amended motion and Harris appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for DUI. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.
On appellate review of a criminal conviction, Harris no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s finding of guilt.
Gamble v. State,
Harris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his *848 conviction for DUI, arguing that “there was insufficient evidence to convict.” According to Harris,
the only evidence against Mr. Harris was that he allegedly only slowed down, but did not stop for a stop sign (not on video), that he briefly moved partially into the left hand lane while his right turn signal was on, there was an odor of alcoholic beverage and he admitted drinking two beers a few hours earlier.
This argument does not provide grounds for reversal. As a reviewing court, we do not re-weigh the evidence or determine credibility, but only determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the accused guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gamble v. State,
supra,
In order to prove that Harris was driving under the influence to the extent he was a less safe driver under OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1), “the [SJtate must prove that the defendant had impaired driving ability as a result of drinking alcohol.” (Citation omitted.)
Davis v. State,
In this case, contrary to Harris’s contentions, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. The sergeant who arrested Harris has almost 14 years of experience and training in DUI detection. The sergeant testified that he arrested Harris based on Harris’s bloodshot and watery eyes, the odor of alcohol coming from him and the alco-sensor test showing the presence of alcohol.
Even though a conviction for driving under the influence to the extent he was a less safe driver “does not require proof that a person actually committed an unsafe act while driving,” the commission of a traffic violation, such as failing to stop for a stop sign or failing to maintain a lane, “can constitute evidence that a driver is impaired.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Yglesia v. State,
Judgment affirmed.