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 TE XAS, 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-Ki pness, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Nowell A jury convicted Murari Rao of drivin g 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 ve rdict will be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found all the esse ntial 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 conf licts 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 specula tion or unsupported inferences, they may draw reasonable inferenc es from the evidence. Id . The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, and thus the jury’s verdict is not irra tional, 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 eviden ce, a reviewing court shall pr esume 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 moto r vehicle in a public place. T EX
. P EN
. C ODE A NN
. § 49.04(a). The evidence presented at trial shows th at 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 respondi ng officer found appellant’s vehicle blocking the roadway. Appellant was “passe d 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 ap pellant had been operating th e motor vehicl e. The jury saw footage from the officer’s body and dashboard cameras. A second officer, the arresting offi cer, 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, sl urred speech.” Appellant failed the field sobriety testing. The officer believed a ppellant had been opera ting a motor vehicle and was intoxicated. The jury also sa w footage from her body-worn camera. Appellant was arrested a nd 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 gr eater than the legal limit of .08. Having reviewed the record , we conclude there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably concl ude appellant was intoxicat ed while operating a motor vehicle in a public place. See Edward , 635 S.W.3d at 655; see also T EX
. P EN
. C ODE A NN . § 49.04(a). Although appellant testifie d in his defense and explained he had not been driving while intoxicated, the ju ry was free to disbe lieve 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered January 18, 2023