On appeal, we do not weigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. Grant v. State, 215 Ga. App. 10, 11 ( 449 S.E.2d 545) (1994). Based on the record, both agents had ample opportunity to view Jackson during the two sales, which occurred during daylight hours within arm's reach of Jackson. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Jackson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of selling both marijuana and cocaine.
Apperson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 804, 805 (2) ( 484 S.E.2d 739) (1997). The arresting officer testified that Walker was speeding, weaved while changing lanes, crossing the center line, smelled like he had been consuming alcohol and, in fact, admitted such. Knox v. State, 216 Ga. App. 90, 92 ( 453 S.E.2d 120) (1995); Grant v. State, 215 Ga. App. 10, 12 ( 449 S.E.2d 545) (1994). This evidence is bolstered by the fact that Walker, after performing ineffectively on his initial breath test and refusing to take another, stated he "just wanted to lay [sic] down."
Green v. State, 260 Ga. 625 (1), 626 ( 398 S.E.2d 360). Proof that he weaved and crossed the center line is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) to authorize the verdict that defendant was a less safe driver due to the methamphetamine in his system, as alleged in Count 1. Grant v. State, 215 Ga. App. 10, 12 ( 449 S.E.2d 545). His admission against interest that he was drinking while driving, coupled with proof that a glass smelling of alcohol was hidden under the passenger seat and the carpet was wet where defendant had poured out his alcoholic beverage, is sufficient to authorize his conviction under OCGA ยง 40-6-253 (b), the open container law.
This evidence is sufficient to authorize the jury's finding that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crimes charged in the two-count indictment. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560); Grant v. State, 215 Ga. App. 10, 11 ( 449 S.E.2d 545). 2.
The evidence is sufficient to authorize the jury's determination that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560); Grant v. State, 215 Ga. App. 10, 11-12 ( 449 S.E.2d 545). 2.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307[, supra]; Griggs v. State, 167 Ga. App. 581, 584 (6) ( 307 S.E.2d 75)." Grant v. State, 215 Ga. App. 10, 12 ( 449 S.E.2d 545). Judgment affirmed.