☢ test - Í

the witness, ‘[i]t was obvious to me that she was moving away from the driver's seat and that he was getting into the driver's seat.’ As the witness spoke with Brockington, ‘[s]he slid over to the passenger's side and the little boy [her nephew] completely got into the driver's side.’” Deering v. State , 244 Ga.App. 30, 535 S.E.2d 4 (May 16, 2000). DUI and related convictions affirmed; evidence supported finding that defendant drove the vehicle: “Deering was found in the driver's seat of a car with its engine running. In addition, the arresting officer testified that the car appeared to have been recently parked and no other persons who could have driven the car were on the scene.” G. DUI – DRUG Jones v. State, 332 Ga.App. 449, 773 S.E.2d 408 (June 9, 2015). DUI and related convictions affirmed; defendant could be convicted of DUI based on use of a drug for which he had a prescription (here, Thorazine). “OCGA § 40–6–391(a)(2) does not require proof that the defendant had consumed an illegal drug. The offense may be established by showing that the defendant was driving while under the influence of ‘ any drug to the extent it [was] unsafe for the person to drive,’ (Emphasis added.)” quoting Shaheed v. State, 270 Ga.App. 709, 710(1), 607 S.E.2d 897 (2004). “ In addition, the evidence may authorize a jury to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving under the influence of one drug specified in a DUI, less safe, accusation or indictment, even when the evidence shows that the defendant had consumed drugs in addition to the specified drug. See Rivera v. State, 309 Ga.App. 544, 545(1), 710 S.E.2d 694 (2011).” Holland v. State, 329 Ga.App. 103, 763 S.E.2d 894 (September 23, 2014). DUI-drug conviction affirmed; 1. trial court properly denied motion to suppress implied consent test results, as officer had probable cause for DUI arrest. “[Officer] Garmon learned that Holland appeared to have caused an accident, that he was taking Lorcet and Soma which made him sleepy, that his eyes were bloodshot and watery and his speech slurred, and that the HGN test indicated Holland was impaired. Construed in favor of the trial court's decision, there was some evidence to support the conclusion that Garmon had probable cause to arrest Holland for driving under the influence of a drug.” 2. Evidence was sufficient to convict. “Here, the State presented evidence to show that while driving a truck, Holland was involved in an accident at an intersection, which led to an investigation of whether Holland was driving in violation of Georgia law. A blood test revealed that Holland had benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of the controlled substance cocaine, in his blood. The evidence was therefore sufficient to sustain the conviction. See, e.g., Page v. State, 296 Ga.App. 431, 437(3) (674 S.E.2d 654) (2009) (‘the state was required to prove that Page was in actual physical control of a moving vehicle when benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of a controlled substance, was present in her blood’).” Head v. State, 303 Ga.App. 475, 693 S.E.2d 845 (March 18, 2010). Evidence insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for less-safe DUI based on drugs: “the state presented evidence that Head had alprazolam and a cocaine metabolite in his blood, and further presented the officer's opinion testimony that Head should have been able to avoid the collision, although the bus driver – not Head – was cited with the traffic infraction. But the record contains no evidence tending to explain the significance of the alprazolam and cocaine metabolite present in Head's blood, i.e., whether the quantity of the drugs was considered sizeable; whether the quantities indicated recent or merely past usage of the drugs; [fn] or what effect the level of drugs found in Head's blood would have on the average person, specifically whether those drugs would cause any physical and/or mental impairment. Significantly, Head elicited expert testimony that the presence of benzoylecgonine in one's blood ‘is not indicative of any impairment because it is the after-effect’ of cocaine.” Evidence supported (a)(6) conviction, however. Richardson v. State, 299 Ga.App. 365, 682 S.E.2d 684 (July 24, 2009). Defendant could be convicted of DUI drug without evidence of “the results from scientific testing of a driver's blood or urine in order to prove the specific type of drug allegedly ingested by the defendant.” Conviction was supported by defendant’s statement to officer that he had smoked marijuana and officer’s expert testimony, “based upon years of experience observing people who are under the influence of marijuana and all of his observations in this case, it was his opinion that Richardson was under the influence of marijuana to the extent that he was a less safe driver.” Ponder v. State, 274 Ga.App. 93, 616 S.E.2d 857 (June 29, 2005). “While it is true that the mere fact that a defendant has ingested marijuana is not sufficient to support a conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(2), evidence of erratic driving coupled with evidence showing the presence of marijuana in the defendant’s system is sufficient. Gilbert v. State, 262 Ga. 840, 840- 841(1) (426 S.E.2d 155) (1993).”