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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 32,515 4 LANE GLEASON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennet J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 12 Nicole Murray, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 FRY, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying hi s motion to suppress. 18 [DS 3] We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm. 192 Defendant has filed a timely memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 1 considered. We remain unpersua ded, and we therefore affirm. 2
{2} Defendant argues that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him for a 3 traffic violation. “We review the distri ct court’s ruling on a motion to suppress to 4 determine whether the law was correctly applied to the fact s, viewing the facts in the 5 light most favorable to the prevailing party.” State v. Cline , 1998-NMCA-154, ¶ 6, 6 126 N.M. 77, 966 P.2d 785. “Questions of reasonable suspicion are reviewed de novo 7 by looking at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the detention was 8 justified.” State v. Robbs , 2006-NMCA-061, ¶ 9, 139 N.M. 569, 136 P.3d 570. “A 9 reasonable suspicion is a particularized su spicion, based on all the circumstances that 10 a particular individual, the one detained, is breaking, or has broken, the law.” State 11 v. Rivas , 2007-NMCA-020, ¶ 7, 141 N.M. 87, 150 P.3d 1037 (internal quotation 12 marks and citation omitted). 13
{3} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that there 14 was reasonable suspicion that Defendant violated NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-322(A) 15 (1978) (stating that both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made 16 as close as practicable to the right-hand cu rb or edge of the ro adway). Deputy James 17 Roberts, testified that he was drivi ng behind Defendant, and he saw Defendant’s 18 vehicle cross over the painted lane marker. [RP 83] He th en observed Defendant 193 make a right hand turn. Deputy Roberts te stified when he madethe turn, Defendant 1 did not turn into the right lane. [RP 83-85] Deputy Roberts then stopped Defendant 2 for an improper right turn and for failing to maintain his lane. [RP 84-85] See NMSA 3 1978, § 66-7-317(A) (1978) (stating that a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as 4 practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until 5 the driver has first ascertainedthat such movement can be made with safety). Deputy 6 Roberts’ personal observation of Defendant’s vehicle failing to turn into the right lane 7 as he made a right hand turn is sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion of a 8 violation of Section 66-7-322(A). See State v. Vargas , 120 N.M. 416, 419, 902 P.2d 9 571, 574 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding that the officer’s observation of the defendant’s 10 vehicle driving on the road without traffic lights at night was sufficient to provide 11 reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation and thus to stop the defendant’s vehicle). 12
{4} In his memorandum in opposition, Defe ndant argues thatDeputy Roberts’ 13 testimony at the suppression hearing was not reliable. Defendant notes that Deputy 14 Roberts did not mention a right turn violati on in his police report. Defendant also says 15 that Deputy Roberts said his recollection was not fresh. [MIO 15-16] However, this 16 is an issue of witness credibility, which we do not review on appeal. See State v. Neal , 17 2007-NMSC-043, ¶15, 142 N.M. 176, 164 P.3d 57 (stating that in reviewing a ruling 18 on a motion to suppress, this Court does not sit as trier of fact, and the district court 194 has the best vantage from which to resolve que stions of fact and to evaluate witness 1 credibility). Defendant also argues that Deputy Roberts gave in consistent responses 2 regarding whether Defendant committed a right turn violation. [MIO 15-16] 3 Defendant points to Deputy Roberts’ statement on cross-examination that it was 4 possible that Defendant made a proper right turn. [MIO 87] However, it is for the fact 5 finder to resolve any inconsistenc ies in a witness’s testimony. See State v. Gipson , 6 2009-NMCA-053, ¶ 12, 146 N.M. 202, 207 P.3d 1179. In this case, the district court 7 specifically found Deputy Roberts’ testimony th at he observed a right turn violation 8 to be credible, and we defer to that finding on appeal. [RP 89] We therefore affirm. 9 Because we hold that Deputy Roberts had reasonable suspicion that Defendant 10 violated Section 66-7-322(A), we do not address Defendant’s arguments that Deputy 11 Roberts lacked reasonable suspicion that he committed a violation of Section 66-7- 12 317(A). 13
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

18 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 195 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2