Following a bench trial, David Sistrunk was found guilty of driving under the influence to the degree he was a less safe driver and failing to stop at a stop sign. On appeal, Sistrunk challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.1 As we find the evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of guilt, we affirm. On appeal from a criminal conviction, Sistrunk no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in a light favorable to the trial court’s finding of guilt.2 In so doing, we neither weigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, but merely determine whether there is sufficient evidence from which a rational fact finder could have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.3
Viewed in this manner, the evidence shows that on February 10, 2005, Officer Steve Drew stopped Sistrunk for failing to yield at a stop sign. During the encounter, Officer Drew smelled alcohol emanating from Sistrunk. Drew performed a preliminary breath test, which confirmed the presence of alcohol.4 Drew testified that, based upon his training and experience, he believed Sistrunk was intoxicated to the point it was less safe for him to drive. However, Drew admittedly did not perform any additional field sobriety testing, and he conceded that he did not notice any other signs that Sistrunk was intoxicated. Based upon this evidence, the trial court found Sistrunk guilty of driving under the influence to the degree it was less safe for him to drive.
