The defendant, on trial to the court, was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor and refusing to submit to tests under the Implied Consent Law. Trial was in the county court and appeal taken to the District Court. The District ' Court also found the defendant guilty and imposed sentence. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and asserts the county court attempted to “chill” his right to appeal.
The evidence submitted by the State indicates that the defendant was observed to be driving erratically, was stopped in a restaurant parking lot, observed to be intoxicated, and, when a crowd gathered, he was driven to another parking lot adjacent to a highway where he was examined and questioned further. The Implied Consent Law, its requirements, and the consequences of failing to comply with it were explained to him. He refused to take a urine or blood test and subjected the officers to verbal abuse. In the opinion of the officers, he was intoxicated. The evidence is sufficient. “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction in a criminal prosecution, it is not the province of this court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or weigh the evidence.” State v. Grooms, 192 Neb. 851, 224 N. W. 2d 781.
After the hearing in the county court, the county judge indicated a finding of guilty and inquired if defendant intended to appeal. It was . made clear that if defendant were to forego his right to appeal, he would
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.