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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 32,484 4 MICHAEL TOWLER, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Jane Schuler Gray, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Judge. 17 Defendant-Appellant, Michael Towler , appeals from his conviction on one 18 count of larceny over $500, a fourth degree felony, following a be nch trial. [RP 75, 192 MIO 1] We issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm, and Defendant filed a 1 memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s argument and 2 affirm. 3 On September 9, 2011, Defendant stole a discarded cattle guard and sold it to 4 a local scrap yard for $254.80. [MIO 1-2] Approximately one w eek later, Defendant 5 purchased the cattle guard backfrom the scrap yard for $551.80. [MIO 2-3] At trial, 6 the owner of the cattle guard te stified that the fair market value of the cattle guard was 7 $10,000. [MIO 3] Upon ques tioning from the judge, the owner testified that the fair 8 market value of the cattle guard was $2,500. [MIO 3] Defendant was convicted of 9 larceny over $500. 10 Defendant continues to argue that there was insufficient evidence to support his 11 conviction because there was insufficient ev idence to show that the scrap metal he 12 stole had a market value of over $500. [MIO 4-5] In reviewing the sufficiency of the 13 evidence, “we view the eviden ce in the light most favorable to the verdict, indulging 14 all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the 15 verdict[.]” State v. Archuleta , 2012-NMCA-007, ¶ 15, 269 P.3d 924. We then “make 16 a legal determination of whether the eviden ce viewed in this matter could justify a 17 finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the crime charged has been 18 established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 19 omitted). “The question is whether the district court’s decision is supported by 203 substantial evidence, not whether the district court could have reached a different 1 conclusion.” Id. (alteration, internal quotations marks, and citation omitted). 2 We conclude that the district court’s decision was supported by substantial 3 evidence. Specifically, the owner of the cattleguard testified thatthe cattle guard had 4 a fair market value of $2,500, and Defendant admitted to purchasing the cattle guard 5 from the scrap yard for $551.80. As we expl ained in our notice, to the extent there 6 was a conflict in the evidence regarding th e market value of the cattle guard, we do 7 not weigh the evidence on appeal, but defer to the district court. See State v. Salas , 8 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (“We defer to the district court 9 when it weighs the credibility of witne sses and resolves conflicts in witness 10 testimony.”). 11 For the reasons stated above and in our notice, we affirm Defendant’s 12 conviction. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

__________________________________ 15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 16

WE CONCUR: 174 _________________________________ 1 JAMES, J. WECHSLER, Judge 2

_________________________________ 3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 4