This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 file d 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 vs. No. 31,771 4 DAVID BACA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Neil Candelaria, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 172 Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment and sentence, entered 1 pursuant to a jury trial, convicting him for breaking and entering and aggravated 2 assault with a deadly weapon. We issu ed a notice of proposed summary disposition, 3 proposing to affirm Defendant ’s convictions. Defendant has responded to our notice 4 with a memorandum in opposition. We ar e not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments 5 that insufficient evidence was presented below. We, therefore, affirm. 6 In response to our notice, Defendant continues to argue that the State did not 7 present sufficient evidence that (1) De fendant entered the apartment without 8 permission to support his conviction for br eaking and entering, [MIO 8-10] and (2) 9 Defendant was the first aggre ssor and therefore did not act in self-defense to support 10 his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. [MIO 11-15] 11 Breaking and Entering 12 Our notice observed that there appearedto be conflicting evidence surrounding 13 the question of whether Defe ndant had and needed permission to enter the apartment 14 in our application of State v. Rubio , 1999-NMCA-018, 126 N.M. 579, 973 P.2d 256. 15 [CN 2-5] We pointed out that it is for th e jury to resolve such conflicts in the 16 evidence. See State v. Cunningham , 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 17 176. We also noted that the docketing stat ement obfuscated which material facts were 18 presented to the jury and reminded trial c ounsel of his obligation of candor towards 193 this Court and of his obligation to supply th is Court with all facts material to the 1 appellate issue raised, including those that support the verdict. See Rule 16-303 2 NMRA; Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA; State v. Montoya , 116 N.M. 297, 306, 861 P.2d 3 978, 987 (Ct. App. 1993) (observing that even in the criminal context this Court need 4 not address a sufficiency challenge if the defendant fails to present all the facts 5 bearing on the conviction). 6 In response to our notice and despite our detailed account of the unclear 7 material facts and our admonishment to trial counsel, Defendant does not specifically 8 address our analysis under Rubio and argue why it is incorr ect, and he does not clarify 9 the docketing statement’s confusing characterization of the evidence presented. As 10 a result, we continue to believe that the jury rejected his characterization of the 11 evidence, adopted a different view of the evidence, and drew inferences therefrom 12 contrary to those advocated by the defense. See State v. Sanchez , 2000-NMSC-021, 13 ¶ 32, 129 N.M. 284, 6 P.3d 486 (stating that “the jury is free to reject Defendant’s 14 version of the facts . . . [and it] resolv es conflicts and determines weight and 15 credibility” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Deferring to the jury on 16 these matters and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, for 17 the reasons stated in the notice, we ar e persuaded that the evidence “supports the 18 conclusion that Defendant did not have blanket authority to enter the apartment, or 194 that whatever authority he may have ha d was freely revocable by [Ms. Velasquez].” 1 See Rubio , 1999-NMCA-018, ¶¶ 8-9. Thus, we ar e persuaded that sufficient evidence 2 supports Defendant conviction for br eaking and entering. We affirm. 3 Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon 4 Similarly, our notice proposed to affi rm Defendant’s aggravated assault 5 conviction on the basis that conflicting evidence was presented surrounding 6 Defendant’s claim of self-defense and was resolved by a jury in the State’s favor, 7 which we accept on appeal. [CN 5-9] Also , we noted that the docketing statement 8 contained conflicting and confusing in formation about what occurred before 9 Defendant arrived at Ms. Ve lasquez’s apartment with a gun. [CN 7-8] Again, we 10 reminded trial counsel of his duty to this Court and his obligati ons under the Rules of 11 Appellate Procedure. [CN 8] Based on our understanding of the evidence presented 12 and indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in favor of the 13 guilty verdict, we proposed to hold that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to 14 reject the self-defense claim and support Defendant’s conviction. 15 Again, in response to our notice, Defendant does not address the inconsistencies 16 we observed in the docketing statement’s recitation of the evidence and its 17 characterization of the evidence. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition is 18 unresponsive to our proposed analysis of this issue as well. Thus, it appears to us that 195 Defendant simply disagrees with the jury’s view of the evidence with regard to this 1 conviction. For the reasons stated in our notice, we hold that sufficient evidence was 2 presented that Defendant’s actions were not necessary or justified by self-defense. See 3 State v. Coffin , 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 12, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (observing that 4 the purpose of recognizing self-defense as a complete justification for an otherwise 5 criminal action “is the reasonable belief in th e necessity for the use of . . . force to 6 repel an attack”). Thus, we are pe rsuaded that suffici ent evidence supports 7 Defendant’s conviction for aggravat ed assault with a deadly weapon. 8 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10
11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

14 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 15

16 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 17