This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,925 9 FERNANDO PENA, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 12 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 13
Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Robert E. Tangora, L.L.C. 17 Robert E. Tangora 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 222 Defendant-Appellant Ferna ndo Pena (Defendant) app eals his conviction for 1 battery. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to uphold 2 the conviction. Defendant has file d a memorandum in opposition. After due 3 consideration, we remain unpers uaded. We therefore affirm. 4 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that his 5 conviction is unsupported by the evidence. [MIO 2-4] 6 “In evaluating the sufficiency of eviden ce in a criminal case, we view the 7 evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolving all conflicts and 8 indulging all permissible inferences to uphold the conviction, and disregarding all 9 evidence and inferences to the contrary.” State v. Perea , 2001-NMSC-026, ¶ 5, 130 10 N.M. 732, 31 P.3d 1006. 11 To very briefly summarize the evidence in light of the applicable standard, 12 Cesar Gutierrez testified that Defendant approached him in an aggressive manner, 13 stomped on his foot and then punched hi m. [RP 142-146] Mr. Gutierrez further 14 explained that he had not welcomed the en counter in any way; rather, he had clearly 15 indicated that he did not wish to con front Defendant. [MIO 1; RP 142] As we 16 observed in our notice of proposed summary disposition, this testimony is sufficient 17 to uphold Defendant’s conviction. See generally State v. Soliz , 80 N.M. 297, 454 P.2d 183 780 (Ct. App.1969) (holding that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to 1 support a conviction). 2 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant contends that the evidence was 3 equally consistent with innocence, insofar as testimony was presented suggesting that 4 he and Mr. Gutierrez had engage d in “mutual combat.” [M IO 4] However, the New 5 Mexico Supreme Court has specifically disa vowed this approach to the review of 6 evidence, see State v. Huber , 2006-NMCA-087, ¶ 12, 140 N.M. 147, 140 P.3d 1096, 7 having deemed it “unproductive to try to formulate a standard of appellate review in 8 terms of a hypothesis of innocence, because inevitably it appears to intrude upon the 9 role of the [jury].” State v. Garcia , 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 20, 138 N.M. 1, 116 P.3d 72. 10 As previously stated, we must view th e evidence in the light most favorable to 11 the verdict, disregarding all evidence and inferences to the contrary

. See Perea , 12 2001-NMSC-026, ¶ 5

. Applying this standard, the conviction was adequately 13 supported, notwithstanding conflicting eviden ce presented by the defense. [MIO 2, 4] 14 See generally State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 15 (filed 1998) (observing that “the jury is free to reject Defendant’s version of the 16 facts”). 17 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed 18 summary disposition, Defendant ’s conviction is AFFIRMED. 1945 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 6

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 8