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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,408 4 SHAYNE SWANN, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Angela Jewell, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvardo, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant Shayne Swann appeals fro m the revocation of his probation, 182 challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to establish thathe violated the conditions 1 of his probation. Unpersuaded by Defendant’s docketing statement, we entered a 2 notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has filed a 3 memorandum in opposition to our notice. We remain unpersuaded and therefore 4 affirm. 5
{2} On appeal, Defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion by 6 finding that he violated hi s probation. [DS 5; MIO 3-5] Our notice detailed the 7 relevant facts for this issue and set forth the law that we believed controlled. Applying 8 the law to the facts, we pr oposed to conclude that there was ample evidence to support 9 the revocation of Defendant’s probation. Inresponse, Defendant does not assert that 10 our account of the evidence upon which we proposed to rely was incorrect; further, 11 his response does not assert any new factual or legal argument that persuades this 12 Court that our notice was incorrect regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. See State 13 v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a 14 party responding to a summary calendar no tice must come forward and specifically 15 point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill 16 this requirement), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris , 17 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition focuses 18 on his own testimony, which c ontradicted the testimony of the State’s two witnesses, 193 and on this basis, Defendant asserts that there was no “s ufficient reliable evidence to 1 support [the district court’s] findings.” [MIO 5] This argument is unpersuasive. On 2 appeal, “[w]e defer to the district court wh en it weighs the credib ility of witnesses and 3 resolves conflicts in witness testimony.” State v. Salas , 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 4 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482. The district court c ould have properly relied on evidence that 5 contradicted Defendant’s version of the facts, State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 6 19,126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829, and it appears to have done just that in this case. In 7 short, we perceive no error in the proceedings below, and on the basis of our proposed 8 disposition, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the revocation of Defendant’s 9 probation. 10
{3} For the reasons set forth in our notice and this opinion, we affirm. 11
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

_________ ___________ ____________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14

WE CONCUR: 15

_______________________________ 16 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 174 _______________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2