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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-37358 4 BRANDON RYAN, 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, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for breaking and entering. We issued a 1 calendar notice proposing to affirm. De fendant has responded with a memorandum 2 in opposition. We affirm. 3
{2} Defendant continues to challenge the su fficiency of the evidence to support his 4 conviction for breaking and entering. A suffi ciency of the evidence review involves 5 a two-step process. State v. Apodaca , 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 6 756. Initially, the evidence is viewed in th e light most favorable to the verdict. Id. 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 charged has beenestablished beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 10 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 11
{3} In order to convict Defendant, the eviden ce had to show thatDefendant entered 12 a residence without permission by cutting a window screen. [RP 119] Defendant does 13 not dispute that the State presented evid ence that he cut into the window screen. 14 Instead, he argues that his conduct amounted to an insufficient “entry” and that the 15 State failed to present evidence that he acted without permission of the homeowner. 16 With respect to “entry,” our Supreme Court ha s recognized that this refers to “the least 17 intrusion into some interior space, that . . . simply refers to the area beyond the 18 boundary that a reasonable person would expect to afford them protection from 19 unauthorized intrusions.” State v. Holt , 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 19, 368 P.3d 409; see also 203 UJI 14-1410 NMRA (stating that where entry is at issue, the court is to instruct the 1 jury that “the least intrusion constitutes anentry”). Here, Defendant penetrated this 2 boundary when he cut the screen w ith a knife. This was sufficient. See State v. Tixier , 3 1976-NMCA-054, ¶ 12, 89 N.M. 297, 551 P.2d 987 (holding that entry occurred 4 where there was a one-half inch penetrati on into a building). With respect to the 5 alleged lack of evidence that the entry was unauthorized, this evidence is implicit by 6 the nature of Defendant’s damage to property and the penetration of the protected 7 space. See Holt , 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 17 (discussing reasonable expectation of privacy 8 underlying the definition of area that is protected from intrusion); State v. Carter, 9 1979-NMCA-117, ¶ 6, 93 N.M. 500, 601 P.2d 733 (observing that “circumstantial 10 evidence may be sufficient to prove an unauthorized entry”). 11
{4} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 12
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

_________________________________ 17 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 184 _________________________________ 1 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge 2