In Commonwealth v. Dirosa, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his DUI conviction, 75 Pa.C.S. ยง 3802(c). The defendant argued that the evidence did not establish he drove his car to a Wawa or that he was in actual physical control of the car while sitting in it at the Wawa parking lot. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, holding that it was reasonable for the trial court to infer that the defendant was intoxicated when he drove his vehicle and parked in front of the Wawa convenience store. The defendant’s speculation “that someone else could have driven his vehicle to the Wawa convenience store and parked it there” was a challenge to the evidence’s weight, which the defendant did not preserve.