☢ test - Í

officers didn’t see defendant drive. “In addition to the fact that the police found a very drunk Lawson alone in the driver's seat, his hands on the wheel of a car that had its headlights on and its engine running, Lawson admitted to the police that he had been drinking and that he drove to the McDonald's to get some food after consuming alcohol.” Reynolds v. State, 306 Ga.App. 1, 700 S.E.2d 888 (September 10, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for hit-and-run and DUI reversed; evidence that defendant was seen near vehicle was insufficient to prove that defendant drove it; “the record contains no evidence that Reynolds owned the Corolla, had authority to drive the car, or had a key to it.” Marsengill v. State, 275 Ga.App. 840, 622 S.E.2d 58 (October 13, 2005). Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had been driving, even though officers did not see him drive. “At approximately 3:45 a.m. on March 4, 2003, two Atlanta police officers approached a car that was parked in such a way that it blocked the right lane of a city street. Marsengill was sitting in the driver’s seat of the car, and two other individuals were in the middle and passenger seats. The officers did not see anyone get into or out of the car before they approached it. … They also found out that the car belonged to Marsengill’s son and that neither Marsengill nor his son lived in the area where the car was parked, indicating that someone had driven the car to that area. … Moreover, other than the mere presence of two passengers, no evidence was presented that raised the possibility that someone else had been driving the car before the officers approached.” Hunt v. State, 261 Ga.App. 417, 582 S.E.2d 493 (May 7, 2003). “As several witnesses on the scene testified that Hunt was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle immediately after the accident, the evidence is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Hunt was the driver at the time of the accident.” Jarriel v. State, 255 Ga.App. 305, 565 S.E.2d 521 (May 9, 2002). Homeowners called police to report a strange vehicle in their front yard at 3:30 a.m. Police arrived within 15 minutes and found defendant, passed out drunk behind the wheel. Homeowners did not testify at trial, and defendant contends that officer’s testimony as to time of call and time of response was insufficient to establish that he drove within three hours of subsequent breath test. Held, conviction upheld: the jury was authorized to assume that the homeowners’ call was in response to being awakened by defendant driving into their front yard, notwithstanding the lack of direct evidence on this point. Newbern v. State, 254 Ga.App. 749, 563 S.E.2d 872 (March 18, 2002). Defendant’s admission at accident scene that he was driving and alone in car supported a finding that he was the driver, despite fact that deputy found him over 100 feet away from point of impact. Savage v. State, 252 Ga.App. 251, 556 S.E.2d 176 (November 2, 2001). DUI conviction affirmed as jury was authorized to find that Defendant was in actual physical control of his vehicle where Defendant placed himself behind the wheel of his car by breaking into it with a coat hanger and then caused the car to roll downhill in the parking lot and collide with a van while Defendant was under the influence of drugs. Defendant’s argument that he was unable to steer the car because he had no keys, is without merit. “It is not necessary to show that the defendant actually steered the vehicle to authorize a conviction.” Further, “[i]t is not necessary that the engine be running in order to constitute a violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a). ” OCGA § 40-6-391(a) provides in pertinent part that “A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while ... (2) Under the influence of any drug to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive ...” (emphasis added). State v. Loy, 251 Ga.App. 721, 554 S.E.2d 800 (September 20, 2001). It is not necessary for a conviction of driving under the influence, much less for probable cause to arrest for DUI, that the driver actually be seen behind the wheel driving the car while under the influence. Such facts, as any others, may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Accord, State v. Gaggini , 321 Ga.App. 31, 740 S.E.2d 845 (March 28, 2013). Brockington v. State, 245 Ga.App. 571, 538 S.E.2d 474 (August 16, 2000). DUI conviction affirmed; evidence supported finding that defendant drove the vehicle. Driver of other vehicle in collision “testified that when he approached Brockington's car after the collision, he observed Brockington ‘partially in the driver's seat and partially-I guess the best way to say it straddling-I don't know that there was much of a console or anything, but it looked like she was trying to get out of the driver's seat and into the passenger's seat.’ He testified that Brockington was ‘sliding out from under the driver's seat’ and ‘was sitting more in the driver's seat than anything.’ While Brockington insisted that her nephew was driving the car, the witness testified that the nephew was completely in the backseat, ‘[a]lmost like laying down,’ and Brockington was ‘between seats at best. Mostly underneath the driver's seat, underneath the steering wheel.’ According to