AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 18, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00202-CR 

MURARI RAO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 006-88025-2019 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

A jury convicted Murari Rao of driving while intoxicated. In a single issue, 

appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm the 

trial court’s judgment. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we 

consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Edward v. State, 635 

S.W.3d 649, 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The verdict will be upheld if any rational 

trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense proven beyond 

a reasonable doubt. Id. “This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility 
 –2– 

of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, 

and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The jury is the sole judge of the weight and 

credibility of the evidence. Edward, 635 S.W.3d at 655. When considering a claim 

of evidentiary insufficiency, we must keep in mind that a juror may choose to believe 

or disbelieve all, some, or none of the evidence presented. Id. Further, while jurors 

may not base their decision on mere speculation or unsupported inferences, they may 

draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Id. The evidence is sufficient to 

support a conviction, and thus the jury’s verdict is not irrational, if “the inferences 

necessary to establish guilt are reasonable based upon the cumulative force of all the 

evidence when considered in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. at 655-56 

(quoting Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)). When faced 

with conflicts in the evidence, a reviewing court shall presume that the fact finder 

resolved those conflicts in favor of the verdict and defer to that determination. Id.

As charged in the information, a person commits an offense if the person is 

intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. 

§ 49.04(a). 

The evidence presented at trial shows that just after 1:00 a.m. on September 

21, 2019, the police received multiple calls about a vehicle parked in the right-hand 

lane of State Highway 121. The responding officer found appellant’s vehicle 

blocking the roadway. Appellant was “passed out” in the driver’s seat, the vehicle 
 –3– 

was turned off, and the keys were in the ignition. Based on his observations, the 

responding officer believed appellant had been operating the motor vehicle. The jury 

saw footage from the officer’s body and dashboard cameras. 

A second officer, the arresting officer, banged on appellant’s window and 

yelled at him to wake up. The officer noted appellant was confused, smelled of 

alcohol, and had “extreme bloodshot eyes, slurred speech.” Appellant failed the field 

sobriety testing. The officer believed appellant had been operating a motor vehicle 

and was intoxicated. The jury also saw footage from her body-worn camera. 

Appellant was arrested and a warrant was obtained to draw his blood. The 

blood draw occurred at approximately 4:00 a.m. Appellant’s blood alcohol 

concentration was .229, which is greater than the legal limit of .08. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude there is sufficient evidence for a 

jury to reasonably conclude appellant was intoxicated while operating a motor 

vehicle in a public place. See Edward, 635 S.W.3d at 655; see also TEX. PEN. CODE 

ANN. § 49.04(a). Although appellant testified in his defense and explained he had 

not been driving while intoxicated, the jury was free to disbelieve his testimony. See

Edward, 635 S.W.3d at 655. 

 
 –4– 

We overrule appellant’s sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

/Erin A Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

220202F.U05 

 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MURARI RAO, Appellant 

No. 05-22-00202-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 006-88025-

2019. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and 

Kennedy participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered January 18, 2023