This decision was not selected for publication inthe New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-g enerated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. 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-37703 4 PAUL STONECIPHER, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 John Dean Jr., 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. 17 {1} Defendant has appealed from a convi ction for trafficking a controlled 18 substance. We previously issued a noti ce of proposed summary disposition in which 192 we proposed to uphold the conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in 1 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 2 {2} Defendant has raised one issue, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to 3 support his conviction. [DS 4; MIO 1] As previously described, [CN 3-4] the State 4 presented evidence that a law enforcement officer arrange d a meeting with Defendant 5 at a specified location for the purpose of purchasing methamphetamine. At that 6 location Defendant participated in the c ontemplated drug transaction by negotiating 7 the price, and Defendant ultimately took the money that the officer presented in 8 exchange for the methamphetamine. [MIO 1-2, 4] This evidence provides adequate 9 support for the jury’s verdict. See, e.g. , State v. Castleman , 1993-NMCA-019, ¶¶ 2, 10 19, 116 N.M. 467, 863 P.2d 1088 (observing that the testimony of an undercover 11 officer describing his purchase of a controlled substance from the defendant was 12 sufficient to support a conviction for trafficking). 13 {3} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant continues to argue that the State’s 14 evidence was insufficient to establish that he “caused the transfer” of the 15 methamphetamine because no evidence was presented that he actually touched the 16 substance, and because a woman was also present who participated in the transaction 17 by weighing the substance and approving the negotiated price. [MIO 4] However, as 183 we previously observed, [CN 4-5] neither of these considerations warrants a different 1 result. Defendant’s facilitation of the trans action is sufficient to establish that he 2 “caused the transfer” of methamphetamine, such that is conviction is supported. See, 3 e.g., State v. Bankert , 1994-NMSC-052, ¶¶ 18-31, 117 N.M. 614, 875 P.2d 370 4 (affirming a conviction for trafficking by po ssession with intent to distribute, even 5 though the defendant “never touched the cocai ne and was often not in the same room 6 where the drug deal took place,” based on the defendant’s actions as facilitator, and 7 further indicating that several people may simultaneously participate in a drug 8 transaction, regardless of actual physical possession of the substance). 9 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 10 disposition and above, we affirm. 11 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

______________________________ 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

_________________________________ 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge 17

_________________________________ 184 JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge 1