This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,887 4 GABRIELLE PADILLA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Law Offices of the Public Defender 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment and sentence, entered after 1 a jury trial, convicting Defe ndant for shoplifting and conspiracy to commit shoplifting 2 and suspending Defendant’s three-year se ntence. Unpersuaded that Defendant’s 3 docketing statement demonstrated error in th e district court, we issued a notice of 4 proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded to our 5 notice with a memorandum in opposition. Wehave considered Defendant’s response 6 and remain unpersuaded that she has demons trated error. Therefore, we affirm. 7 {2} On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her 8 convictions for shoplifting and conspiracy to commit shoplifting. Our notice detailed 9 our standard of review and the evidence presented by the State; we do not repeat this 10 analysis herein. In response to our no tice, Defendant does not contend that our 11 recitation of the evidence the State pres ented was inaccurate. Rather, Defendant 12 recounts and emphasizes evidence that mi ght cause us to question the State’s 13 characterization of events at trial. [MIO 1-5] On appeal, however, this Court does not 14 indulge in the possible truthfulness or persuasiveness of a version of events that 15 contradicts the jury’s verdict. See State v. Cunningham , 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 16 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (stating that we “view the evidence in the light most 17 favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all 18 conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verd ict”). It is for the fact-finder to resolve 193 any conflict in the testimony of the witnesse s and to determine where the weight and 1 credibility lie. See State v. Salas , 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 2 482. 3 {3} Defendant argues that the legal deficiencyin the State’s case is its failure to 4 prove that Defendant had the mens rearequired for shoplifting—the intent to take 5 merchandise without payment—or the mens rearequired for conspiracy—an 6 agreement or intent to commit shoplifting. [MIO 7-11] Defendant contends that the 7 State’s evidence of Defendant’s mens reawas Mr. Esquero’s and Mr. Quintanilla’s 8 hunch that Defendant was acting suspiciouslyand that a mere hunc h does not establish 9 her intent beyond a reasonable doubt. [MIO 8, 11] We disagree that the State 10 presented only a mere, baseless hunch. As wedescribed in more detail in our notice, 11 the State presented circumstantial evidence of a scheme between Defendant and Ms. 12 Aragon to steal the TV. Testimony was pres ented describing their suspicious behavior 13 indicating an intent to steal the TV. Evid ence was also presented that Defendant knew 14 the store and its electronics department becau se she worked there before the incident. 15 There were two videos introduced into ev idence: one showing the women working 16 in concert, Defendant talking to a cashier , while Ms. Aragon pushed the cart with the 17 TV in the direction of the exit in the gard en area; and the other video, showing the 18 women pushing the cart toward the exit, and Mr. Esquero confronting them before 194 they left the store. [RP 157-59; DS unnumbered 2] Also, the State presented evidence 1 of Defendant’s inability to pay for the TV. [RP 159; DS unnumbered 2] 2 {4} “[I]ntent is subjective and is almost al ways inferred from other facts in the case, 3 as it is rarely establis hed by direct evidence.” State v. Guerra , 2012-NMSC-027, ¶ 13, 4 284 P.3d 1076 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. 5 Castañeda , 2001-NMCA-052, ¶ 21, 130 N.M. 679, 30 P.3d 368 (“Since the element 6 of intent involves the state of mind of the defendant it is seldom, if ever, susceptible 7 to direct proof, and may be proved by ci rcumstantial evidence.” (internal quotation 8 marks and citation omitted)). Viewing the ev idence in the light most favorable to the 9 verdict and indulging in inferences that only support the verdict, we hold that 10 sufficient circumstantial evidence of Defendant’s intent was presented to support her 11 convictions. 12 {5} We, therefore, affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence. 13 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

__________________________________ 15 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

_______________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 19

_______________________________ 20 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 21