A jury found George Peters guilty of driving under the influence per se in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5 and possession of an open container of alcoholic beverage while operating a vehicle in violation of OCGA § 40-6-253 b 1 B. Peters appeals, contending that insufficient evidence supports his DUI conviction and that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test because there was no probable cause for his arrest and the arresting officer did not reasonably accommodate his request for an independent test. Because the State submitted insufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof, we must reverse Peters’ DUI conviction. As Peters makes no argument with regard to the validity of his conviction for possessing an open container, we affirm it. 1. Peters argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction because the State failed to prove that his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit within three hours of the time that he was in actual physical control of a vehicle. See OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5. On appeal, we must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict and the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, on appeal this court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Williams v. State , 217 Ga. App. 636, 638 3 458 SE2d 671 1995.
Viewed in this light, the record shows that the arresting officer testified that he was dispatched around 7:00 p.m. to a Pizza Hut parking lot “in reference to a possible impaired driver.” The officer testified at trial that when he approached Peters in the Pizza Hut parking lot, Peters was sitting behind the driver’s wheel of a white Cadillac. The driver’s side window of the Cadillac was rolled down, the keys were in the ignition, and the radio was playing. After noticing that Peters’ eyes were bloodshot and watery, as well as a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from Peters’ breath, the officer asked Peters how much he had to drink that evening. Peters did not answer the officer’s question. Instead, he claimed that his mother had been driving, not him. An elderly woman was sitting in the front passenger seat of the Cadillac, but she never spoke with the officer or made any claim that she had been driving instead of Peters.
