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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 31,737 4 JOHN MARCUS NEAL, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Lisa C. Schultz, 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 for Appellant 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 GARCIA, Judge. 162 Defendant appeals his sentence upon proba tion revocation. In particular, he 1 contends that the district court erred in failing to give him credit for time he 2 admittedly “absconded” from probation. In our notice, we proposed to affirm. 3 Defendant has timely responded. We have considered his arguments and, finding 4 them unpersuasive, affirm. 5 Defendant continues to argue that the State failed to prove that he was a 6 fugitive. He argues that th e State only established that Defendant failed to report to 7 his probation officer and failed to appear fo r court on two different days. He argues 8 that the State alleged only that he could not be found. This, he argues, is insufficient 9 to show that the State was unsuccessful in any attempts to locate him. 10 As we pointed out in our notice, howev er, a warrant was issued for Defendant’s 11 arrest [RP 101] and was entered into th e NCIC database. [RP 105] We have 12 previously concluded that such evidence is sufficient to support a finding of fugitive 13 status. State v. Neal , 2007-NMCA-086, ¶ 31, 142 N.M. 487, 167 P.3d 935. 14 Defendant recognizes that a wa rrant was issued and that it was entered into the NCIC 15 database. But, he argues, th ere was no evidence of an atte mpt to serve the warrant and 16 there must be some showing of an attempt to locate the Defendant in order to serve 17 the warrant. 183 Here, although there was no specific evid ence presented that an attempt was 1 made to serve the warrant, there was an admission made by Defendant that he failed 2 to appear for court dates, that he coul d not be found and ha d not reported to his 3 probation officer. We believe that this evid ence “raises a reasonabl e inference that the 4 warrant could not be served with reasonable diligence.” State v. Thomas , 113 N.M. 5 298, 302, 825 P.2d 231, 235 (Ct. App. 1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. 6 Jiminez , 2004-NMSC-012, 135 N.M. 442, 90 P.3d 461 (1994). Therefore, we 7 conclude that there was su fficient evidence to support the district court’s implicit 8 finding that Defendant was a fugitive so th at it could deny him credit for time served 9 on probation. 10 For the reasons stated herein and in the calendar notice, we affirm. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 12

13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 174 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2