Columbus Ussery appealed his per se DUI conviction, arguing that the State failed to establish that the person who drew his blood was qualified under OCGA § 40-6-392 and that the remaining evidence could not support conviction without the blood test. The State offered no testimony from the blood drawer or government certification; instead, the owner of the blood-draw service testified that she checked the drawer’s credentials, trained and supervised her, and authorized her to draw blood, and introduced a phlebotomy-technician certificate record. The Court of Appeals held that the owner’s testimony satisfied the statute’s supervisor method and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an adequate foundation for the test result. Because the blood evidence was properly admitted, the court deemed Ussery’s remaining sufficiency claim moot and affirmed.