☢ test - Í

that he had consumed ‘beer, tequila, and lots of alcohol’ earlier in the day. Kimbrell failed the field sobriety tests given on the scene, his breath smelled of alcohol, and his speech was slurred. After being read the implied consent warning, Kimbrell refused to submit to a breath test.” “Here, Kimbrell’s admissions in combination with his refusal to submit to state-administered chemical testing and Deputy Gaddis’ opinion that he was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver were sufficient to support the trial judge’s verdict to such effect beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cits.]” Lee v. State, 280 Ga.App. 706, 634 S.E.2d 837 (July 26, 2006). “The crime of driving while under the influence to the extent that it is less safe to drive does not require proof that a person actually committed an unsafe act while driving ; rather, it requires showing three elements: (1) driving, (2) under the influence of alcohol, (3) to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive. [Cits.] ‘Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to meet this burden of proof.’ (Citations omitted.) Self v. State, 232 Ga.App. 735, 736(2) (503 S.E.2d 625) (1998).” Evidence here was sufficient: “Here, [Officer] Lowe testified that Lee smelled of alcohol, he was speeding, his eyes were red and glassy, his speech was slurred, he refused to submit to any field sobriety tests, he swayed while standing still, he had two open containers in his vehicle, and he acted oddly when he raised his hands several times despite Lowe’s admonitions. This evidence, coupled with Lowe’s opinion that he was impaired, authorized the trial court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee was guilty of DUI to the extent that he was a less safe driver. [Cits.]” Accord, Jaffray v. State , 306 Ga.App. 469, 702 S.E.2d 742 (October 14, 2010); Harris v. State , 307 Ga.App. 847, 706 S.E.2d 702 (February 15, 2011) (unsafe act while driving not required for conviction); Bennett v. State , 313 Ga.App. 465, 722 S.E.2d 94 (December 29, 2011); Sullivan v. State , 326 Ga.App. 441, 756 S.E.2d 671 (March 21, 2014) (DUI can be proved by “evidence that the defendant refused to take a breath test, as well as the officer's own observations regarding the defendant's behavior and the odor of alcohol on his person.”); Jones v. State , 332 Ga.App. 449, 773 S.E.2d 408 (June 9, 2015) (no unsafe act required to prove less-safe DUI). Norton v. State, 280 Ga.App. 303, 640 S.E.2d 48 (July 6, 2006). “The evidence in this case is sufficient to support Norton’s less-safe conviction. [Cit.] Officer Harrod found Norton lying on the side of a road a short distance from her vehicle. She admitted that she had lost control of the vehicle and run into an embankment on the opposite side of the road. At the time the officer discovered her, Norton’s blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit, which constitutes circumstantial evidence that she was a less safe driver. She also smelled of alcohol and failed several field sobriety tests. It was for the jury to decide the reasonableness of the hypotheses that Norton drove off the road either before becoming intoxicated or because of road conditions. [Cit.] And it is a reasonable inference that she did not consume alcohol between the time she left her vehicle and the time the officer found her. [Cit.]” Hoffman v. State, 275 Ga.App. 356, 620 S.E.2d 598 (September 1, 2005). Evidence was sufficient to convict of less safe DUI: late at night, officer “observed a car whose driver failed to dim the headlights for two oncoming vehicles. Therefore, [officer] followed the car and soon observed its speed reduced to ‘what was slower than normal turning speed.’ The car then ‘drifted’ to the left toward the center line before making a ‘wide’ right turn. Shortly thereafter, [officer] saw the car again ‘going out more into the intersection’ before making another right turn. Based on these maneuvers, which indicated to [officer] that the driver might be impaired, [officer] stopped the vehicle and walked to the driver-side window. When the driver, Hoffman, rolled down his window, [officer] immediately smelled a strong odor of alcoholic beverage. As Hoffman answered his questions, [officer] noted an even stronger odor of alcoholic beverage. [Officer] noted that Hoffman’s face was flushed and his eyes were bloodshot. He asked Hoffman whether he had consumed any alcohol that night, and Hoffman answered that he had drunk one beer. Hoffman refused to submit to an alco-sensor test and to field sobriety evaluations.” “‘ Refusal to submit to field sobriety tests ... is admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication and together with other evidence would support an inference that [the suspect] was an impaired driver.’ Jones v. State, 273 Ga.App. 192, 194(1)(b) (614 S.E.2d 820) (2005) (citations and punctuation omitted).” Accord, Lee v. State , 280 Ga.App. 706, 634 S.E.2d 837 (July 26, 2006). Cromartie v. State, 275 Ga.App. 209, 620 S.E.2d 413 (August 11, 2005). “Admissible evidence tending to prove that Cromartie was under the influence of drugs at the time she struck the victim with her car included (1) her refusal to submit to a blood test, (2) her admission that she was under the influence, (3) the crack pipe recovered at the scene, and (4) her failure of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. [Cits.]” Raby v. State, 274 Ga.App. 665, 618 S.E.2d 704 (July 27, 2005). Evidence was sufficient to sustain DUI conviction: “a sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to the location of a single car accident. Upon arrival, the deputy saw Raby’s pickup truck protruding from a ditch at an angle, and Raby told him that he missed the driveway and ran into the ditch when he was