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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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. 35,467 4 MELISSA LEDESMA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 James Waylon Counts, 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 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment and sentence, convicting 1 her for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, possession of marijuana, and no 2 proof of insurance. Unpersuaded that Defe ndant demonstrated error, we issued a 3 notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has 4 responded to our notice with a memorandum in opposition. We have duly considered 5 Defendant’s response and remain unpersuaded. We, therefore, affirm. 6
{2} On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to 7 support her conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. She argues that 8 the State did not establish by sufficient ev idence that she knew th e officer was trying 9 to stop her and that she willfu lly refused to stop. [MIO 2- 5] In response to our notice, 10 Defendant points out that sh e did not stop when the officer engaged his emergency 11 lights, because she did not realize that he was trying to stop her until he turned on his 12 siren, which made her reali ze that the officer intended to stop her. [MIO 2, 5] We 13 observe that Defendant did not stop immediately after the officer turned on his siren, 14 however. [MIO 5] The officerturned it on and off twice, and Defendant did not stop 15 for another block thereafter. [MIO 5] 16
{3} As we stated in our notice, there wa s plenty of evidence from which the jury 17 could reasonably infer that Defendant was aware that the officer was attempting to 183 pull over her vehicle, that sh e willfully resisted pulling over, and that she drove slowly 1 to cause delay in order to make time to hide drugs and other contraband. 2 See State v. Cunningham , 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 3 (explaining that we indulge all reasonable in ferences in favor of the verdict). The 4 evidence included: the geographic distance De fendant traveled while the officer was 5 signaling for her to stop; the slow sp eed with which Defe ndant drove without 6 stopping; the behavior of her three pa ssengers, frequently moving around, turning 7 around to watch the officer, and appearing to hide something; the odd and nervous 8 behavior of the passengers when the officerapproached the vehi cle; the case of beer 9 and open containers visible in the vehicle; and the drugs and drug paraphernalia found 10 on the passengers and in containers withinthe vehicle, including Defendant’s purse. 11 [DS 3; RP 115, 118-121] 12
{4} Defendant’s alternative view of events does not present a basis for reversal, 13 because the jury is free to rej ect that version of the facts. See State v. Rojo , 1999- 14 NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; see also State v. Salas , 1999-NMCA15 099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for the factfinder to 16 resolve any conflict in the testimony of th e witnesses and to determine where the 17 weight and credibility lie). Viewing the evid ence in the light most favorable to the 18 verdict and disregarding all contrary ev idence and inferences, we hold that the 194 evidence was sufficient to support Defendant ’s conviction for resisting, evading or 1 obstructing an officer as it was instructed to the jury. [RP 149] See Cunningham , 2 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26; Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19. 3
{5} Based on the analysis in the notice and inthis opinion, we affirm the district 4 court’s judgment and sentence. 5
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

__________ ______________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8

WE CONCUR: 9

________________________________ 10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11

________________________________ 12 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 13