Aubrey Clifton Hobbs, Jr. appeals his convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Held:

1. Hobbs contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Although Hobbs argues that the evidence showed he was not driving when he was stopped by the police, the arresting officer testified that he saw Hobbs driving the car. Further, notwithstanding the exclusion of the results of the Intoximeter 3000, see Division 2 below, the testimony from the police officer regarding Hobbs' ability to drive safely is sufficient to establish Hobbs' guilt. On appeal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Hobbs no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and this Court neither determines the sufficiency of the evidence, weighs the evidence, nor judges the witnesses' credibility. Grant v. State, 195 Ga. App. 463 (393 SE2d 737). Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Hobbs guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560); Crawford v. State, 245 Ga. 89, 90 (263 SE2d 131).

Kampplain, supra at 19.

3. In view of our disposition in Division 2, Hobbs' other enumerations of error are moot and are not likely to arise again upon further prosecution.