Opinions are given to OP's all the time here with very little information offered. In this case, if the OP said he failed a FST, blew a 1.5bac, puked on the officer and ran down a pedestrian in a crosswalk, you'd likely say that he is screwed royal. You would not say "we don't know the state's case." Yet when an OP says the opposite, that he did not take (or fail) a FST, did not take (or fail) a blood test, was observed for two hours by an officer in the ER, got in a traffic accident (but the roadway was wet), that the cop did not pursue the blood test, you are going to say you don't have enough information about what the DA has in the form of evidence? Well, you know what the DA does not have. He does not have any hard evidence that the OP was impaired.
Why won't you (or others) tell the OP what are the strong points of their case? You tell them what is most probable when the evidence is against them. You also won't tell the OP what DA's often do with a weak case...they go for whatever conviction they can. In this case it was a pled down case. Why? Likely because the DA doesn't have any hard evidence but wants a conviction anyway. Would you even agree that DA's strive for convictions?
IMO, you guys are very quick to say someone is screwed and doesn't have a defense but you nearly always use the excuse that "we don't have enough information" to avoid saying "it sounds like you have a good case." Why is that? This has 'good case' written all over it! You as a lawyers should see that...and say that.
None of you see through the eyes of a defense attorney. You are all DA's at heart when this site should be occupied by defense attorney minded folks. And your post reflects that mindset.