Riley P. Harris was found guilty by a jury of failure to stop for 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 a1 . 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 , 283 Ga. App. 326 1 641 SE2d 642 2007. So viewed, the record shows that around 2:00 am on August 4, 2007, the sergeant on duty observed Harris’s vehicle fail to stop at a stop sign. The sergeant followed Harris’s vehicle and after observing the vehicle change from the slow lane into the fast lane without signaling, stopped Harris’s vehicle. When he asked for Harris’s driver’s license, he noticed an odor of alcohol and that Harris’s eyes were bloodshot and watery. The sergeant had Harris blow into an Alco-Sensor, which showed positive for alcohol. The sergeant did not have Harris perform any field sobriety tests because he had a spinal cord injury. The sergeant tried to perform a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but Harris was unable to follow the stimulus. After speaking to Harris briefly, the sergeant placed him under arrest.
1. Harris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 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 , 283 Ga. App. 326 1 641 SE2d 642 2007.
