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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from 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. 35,523 4 CHERYL AKERS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 7 Daniel A. Bryant, 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 Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Defendant appeals her c onvictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer 18 (deadly weapon), tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an 192 officer. We issued a calendar notice pro posing to affirm. Defendant has responded 1 with a motion to amend the docketing statement and a memorandum in opposition. 2 We hereby deny the motion to amend. We affirm. 3 MOTION TO AMEND 4 {2} Defendant has filed a motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new 5 issue. [MIO 2] In cases assigned to the summary calendar, this Court will grant a 6 motion to amend the docketing statement to in clude additional issues if the motion (1) 7 is timely, (2) states all facts material to a consideration of the new issues sought to be 8 raised, (3) explains how the issues were properly preserved or why they may be raised 9 for the first time on appeal, (4) demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues 10 were not originally raised in the docketing statement, and (5) complies in other 11 respects with the appellate rules. See State v. Rael , 1983-NMCA-081, ¶ 15, 100 N.M. 12 193, 668 P.2d 309. This Court wi ll deny motions to amend that raise issues that are 13 not viable, even if they allege f undamental or jurisdictional error. See State v. Moore , 14 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91, superceded by rule on other 15 grounds as stated in State v. Salgado , 1991-NMCA-044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 16 730. 17 {3} Here, Defendant claims that double jeopardy precluded her conviction for 18 tampering with evidence because it was a mere continuation of the conduct that 19 supported her conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing. [MIO 2] In effect, 203 Defendant is arguing that the conduct wa s unitary. When determining whether [a 1 d]efendant’s conduct was unitary, we consider whether [the d]efendant’s acts are 2 separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness. State v. DeGraff , 2006-NMSC-011, 3 ¶ 27, 139 N.M. 211, 131 P.3d 61 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 “Conduct is unitary when not sufficiently separated by time or place, and the object 5 and result or quality and nature of the acts cannot be distinguished.” State v. Silvas , 6 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 10, 343 P.3d 616. 7 {4} The conduct in this case supporting the ch arges was not unitary. The tampering 8 conviction was based on the abandonment of the motor vehicle that was used in the 9 altercation, which took place in a completely different area. [RP 79; MIO 3-4] The 10 obstruction conviction was ba sed on Defendant’s obstructi on of an officer who was 11 attempting to arrest her husband. [RP 80] As such, the conduct was not unitary. 12 JURY INSTRUCTION 13 {5} Defendant has abandoned this issue. [MIO 1, fn. 1] 14 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 15 {6} Defendant continues to claim that the evidence was insufficient to support her 16 conviction for tampering with evidence. A sufficiency of the evidence review involves 17 a two-step process. Initially, th e evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the 18 verdict. Then the appellate court must make a legal determination of “whether the 19 evidence viewed in this manner could justif y a finding by any rational trier of fact that 204 each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” 1 State v. Apodaca , 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal 2 quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 {7} In order to convict Defendant, the evidence had to show that Defendant hid or 4 placed a motor vehicle in an effort to avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction. 5 [RP 79] Here, the vehicle in question was the instrument that constituted the deadly 6 weapon for the assault charge. [RP 78] The vehicle apparently belonged to someone 7 else, and the evidence indicates that Defendant abandoned the vehicle with the keys 8 inside and that she spent two nights nearby hiding in a ditch. [RP 125, 128; MIO 4] 9 A jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant intentionally disassociated herself 10 from the vehicle by abandoning it and sleeping in the ditch. 11 {8} For the reasons set forth above, affirm. 12 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 15

WE CONCUR: 165 _________________________________ 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 2

_________________________________ 3 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 4