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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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. 36,102 4 JACK CLARK, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 Dustin K. Hunter, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from his bench trial convictions of driving under the 1 influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(A) 2 (2010, amended 2016) (impaired to the slightes t degree), and failure to maintain lane, 3 pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-317 (1978). [DS 1; RP 168, 174, 199] This 4 Court issued a notice proposing to affi rm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in 5 opposition, which we have duly consider ed. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 6
{2} Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is wh ether his conviction for DUI is supported 7 by sufficient evidence. [DS 10] Based on th e facts noted in the docketing statement 8 and viewing them in the light most favorab le to the verdict, we proposed to hold 9 Defendant’s conviction was supporte d by sufficient evidence. [CN 6] See State v. 10 Cunningham , 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (stating that the 11 reviewing court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, 12 indulging all reasonable inferen ces and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor 13 of the verdict”). In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant con tinues to argue his 14 conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence based on contrary evidence 15 tending to show his failure to maintain his lane was caused by the poor condition of 16 his vehicle, gusty winds, and road construction; Defendant stated he had consumed 17 only two beers and two energy drinks; and Defendant’s appearance and performance 18 on the field sobriety tests wa s due to fatigue, wind, and ro ad construction. [MIO 2-4, 193 5-7] As we noted in our notice of proposed disposition, “[c]ontrary evidence 1 supporting acquittal does not provide a basis fo r reversal because the jury is free to 2 reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts.” State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 3 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; see State v. Salas , 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 4 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for th e fact-finder to resolve any conflict in 5 the testimony of the witnesse s and to determine where th e weight and credibility lie). 6 [CN 6] We therefore hold the eviden ce was sufficient to support Defendant’s 7 conviction for DUI. 8
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the notice of proposed disposition and 9 because Defendant’s asserted contrary facts do not present a basis for reversal of his 10 conviction, we affirm. 11
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 174 1 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 2