This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,007 9 JOE MICHAEL VILLALBA, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Mike Murphy, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Margaret E. McLean, Assistant Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 The Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C. 18 Nancy L. Simmons 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 23 Defendant appeals from his convictions for driving while intoxicated, driving 24 with a suspended or revoked license, and failu re to maintain a tr affic lane. In this 252 Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Defendant 1 has filed a memorandum in opposition. We have considered Defendant’s arguments, 2 and as we are not persuaded by them, we affirm. 3 Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his 4 convictions because there was evidence presented at trial th at it was his girlfriend, and 5 not he, who was driving. In reviewing the sufficiency of the ev idence, we must view 6 the evidence in the “light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable 7 inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. 8 Cunningham , 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. “[T]he relevant 9 question is whether, after viewing the evid ence in the light most favorable to the 10 prosecution, anyrational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 11 crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Garcia , 114 N.M. 269, 274, 837 P.2d 862, 12 867 (1992) (internal quotation marks and c itation omitted). “The reviewing court 13 does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as 14 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.” State v. Mora , 15 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789. 16 Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions 17 because the police officer’s video of the tr affic stop showed Defendant’s girlfriend in 18 the driver’s seat, suggesting that she, rather than Defendant had been driving the 193 vehicle. [DS 1-2] In our notice of pr oposed summary disposition, we proposed to 1 affirm because the officer testified that he saw Defendant and his girlfriend switching 2 seats as the vehicle was being stopped, even though the video did not capture 3 Defendant and his girlfriend switching seat s. [DS 2] We stated that although 4 Defendant asserted that the officer could not have seen Defendant changing seats, it 5 was for the jury to evaluate the officer’s credibility and to resolve any potential 6 conflict between the officer’s te stimony and the videotape. See State v. 7 Ortiz-Burciaga , 1999-NMCA-146, ¶ 22, 128 N.M. 382, 993 P.2d 96 (stating that it 8 is the “exclusive province of the jury to resolve factual inconsistencies” in the 9 evidence presented at trial (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Sosa , 10 2000-NMSC-036, ¶ 8, 129 N.M. 767, 14 P.3d 32 (observing that the “credibility of 11 witnesses is for the jury” to decide). Therefore, we proposed to conclude that a 12 reasonable juror could have concluded that the video evidence simply did not show 13 everything that occurred, either because the video recorder was turned on after 14 Defendant and his girlfriend switched seats, or because the switch was not visible on 15 the video. 16 In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he asserts that this Court should 17 assign the case to the general calendar in or der to review the videotape and determine 18 whether the officer’s testimony was crediblein light of what the videotape shows. 194 Defendant’s argument essentially asks this Court to re-weigh the evidence, which is 1 not our function on appeal. The officer tes tified that he saw De fendant switching from 2 the driver’s seat to the passenger’s seat, and this evidence was sufficient to support a 3 conclusion that Defendant was driving. Accordingly, weconclude that Defendant’s 4 arguments do not warrant assignm ent to the general calendar. 5 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in the notice of proposed 6 summary disposition, we affirm. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13

14 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 15