This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 35,070 4 JOHN FLORES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 7 Matthew E. Chandler, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 12 Will O’Connell, Assistan t Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 SUTIN, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. We 1 issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a 2 memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 3 {2} Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 4 conviction for felon in possession of a firearm, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-7- 5 16(A) (2001). [MIO 2] A sufficiency of the evidence review involves a two-step 6 process. Initially, the evidence is viewed inthe light most favorable to the verdict. 7 Then the appellate court must make a legal determination of “whether the evidence 8 viewed in this manner could justify a fi nding by any rational trier of fact that each 9 element of the crime char ged has been establishe d beyond a reasonable doubt.” State 10 v. Apodaca , 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal quotation 11 marks and citation omitted). 12 {3} In order to convict Defe ndant, the evidence had to show that he was in 13 possession of a firearm and had been convictedof a felony within the last ten years. 14 [RP 165] Here, an officer was investigating a possible stolen vehicle in an alley and 15 noticed Defendant walking nearby in the same alley. [MIO 1] The officer initiated 16 contact, and Defendant informed the officer that he was carrying a firearm. [MIO 1] 17 The firearm was admitted as evidence in th e district court. [DS 2] There was also 18 evidence that Defendant had b een convicted of a felony within the last ten years. [DS 193 2] Defendant testified that he believed this prior convi ction was a misdemeanor and 1 not a felony, and the jury was given a mistake of fact instruction. [MIO 1-2; RP 168] 2 The jury was free to reject Defendant’s claim that he believed that his felony 3 conviction was actually a misdemeanor conviction. See State v. Sutphin , 1988-NMSC4 031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (noting that the fact-finder is free to reject a 5 defendant’s version of events). 6 {4} In light of the above-noted evidence supporting Defendant’s conviction, we 7 affirm. 8 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

__________________________________ 10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11
WE CONCUR: 12

_________________________________ 13 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 14

_________________________________ 15 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 16