This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. 36,124 4 AUSTIN BOONE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Raymond L. Romero, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Attorney General 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17
{1} Austin Boone (Defendant) appeals his conviction of aggravated fleeing from 18 a law enforcement officer. See NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1.1 (2003). On appeal, 192 Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, 1 specifically asserting that the State failed to offer evidence that he drove in a manner 2 that “endangers the life of another person.” [MIO 3] This Court issued a calendar 3 notice proposing to affirm Defendant’s c onviction and he has filed a memorandum in 4 opposition to that proposed summary disposition. Having duly considered that 5 memorandum, we are unpersuaded and now affirm. 6
{2} At trial, the State offered the testim ony of a sheriff’s deputy who apparently 7 chased Defendant down Highway 285, near Artesia, using his emergency lights and 8 siren. [DS unnumbered page 3; MIO 1] According to that testimony, Defendant 9 “traveled at speeds of 55-65 miles per hour , with a passenger inthe car, and stopped 10 abruptly, causing the deputy to swerve to avoid hitting him.” [MIO 4] In his 11 memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that these facts do not rise to the level 12 of endangering anyone by attempting to distinguish them from the facts in a pair of 13 other cases in which aggravated fleeing convictions were affirmed. [MIO 4-5] 14
{3} It is true that State v. Coleman , 2011-NMCA-087, ¶ 4, 150 N.M. 622, 264 P.3d 15 523, involved a defendant running stop signs atover 100 miles an hour. It is also true 16 that the defendant in State v.Padilla , 2008-NMSC-006, ¶ 3, 143 N.M. 310, 176 P.3d 17 299, drove through stop signs at eighty mile s an hour. More importantly, however, in 18 both of those cases—just as in this case—there were passengers in the defendants’ 193 cars who were placed at risk by the defendants’ behavior. In Coleman, we held that 1 two passengers were pl aced in jeopardy during the chase, and in Padilla , two 2 passengers were endange red, in part, because of a br oken door latch that allowed a 3 door to swing partly open whiletaking corners at high speed. See Coleman , 2011- 4 NMCA-087, ¶ 22; see also Padilla , 2008-NMSC-006, ¶ 17. 5
{4} In this case, Defendant’s passenger was in his car when he stopped abruptly, 6 forcing a sheriff’s deputy to swerve to avoi d hitting his car. [MIO 1, 4; DS 4] There 7 can be little doubt that a car collision at highway speeds involves significant risks. 8 Based upon the testimony received at trial, Defendant exposed hi s passenger to those 9 risks. In doing so, Defendantendangered the life of another person for purposes of 10 Section 30-22-1.1. Defendant’s conviction is affirmed. 11
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 17

18 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 19