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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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. 33,684 4 JULIAN JACQUEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 William C. Birdsall, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Allison H. Jaramillo, Assist ant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 FRY, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant pled no contest to auto burglary, reserving the right to appeal the 18 denial of his motion to suppress. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary 192 disposition in which we proposed to affi rm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in 1 opposition. After due consideration, we re main unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 2
{2} Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles were 3 previously set out in the notice of pr oposed summary disposition, we will avoid 4 unnecessary repetition here, and instead fo cus on the content of the memorandum in 5 opposition. 6
{3} Defendant has raised a single issue, contending that a statement he made to 7 police should have been suppressed on grounds that he did not knowingly, 8 intelligently, and voluntarily waiv e his constitutional rights under Miranda . [MIO 6] 9 Specifically, Defendant conti nues to assert that his waiver was not voluntary because 10 he was coerced with promises of leniency . [MIO 7-8] However, as we previously 11 observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, Detective Whitaker 12 specifically testified that he did not promise Defendant anything. [MIO 7-8; RP 46, 13 48] Although Defendant testified otherwise, [MIO 4, 7] the district court, as finder of 14 fact, was at liberty to reject Defendant’s assertion and to resolve the evidentiary 15 conflict in the State’s favor. See generally State v. Fierro , 2014-NMCA-004, ¶ 40, 315 16 P.3d 319 (“We emphasize that the finder of fact , not an appellate c ourt, must reconcile 17 any conflicts in the evidence and determin e where truth and credibility lies. The fact 18 finder can choose to believe the [s]tate’s testimony and disbelieve[the d]efendant’s 193 version of events.”). Defendant also rene ws his assertion that his waiver was not 1 knowing and intelligent, insofar as he wa s under the influence of methamphetamines. 2 [MIO 8-10] As we previously observed, the district court heard the testimony of 3 Detective Whitaker, who indicated that Defendant seemed okay cognitively, was 4 responding properly to questions, he appeared to understand the form and seemed 5 familiar with the process. [MIO 2] Detec tive Whitaker further testified that although 6 Defendant might have been experiencing withdrawal, he observed no indication that 7 Defendant was under the influence of drugs atthe time of the interview. [MIO 3] This 8 evidence supplies adequate support for the di strict court’s determination that the 9 statement was knowingly and intelligently made. See, e.g., State v. Evans , 10 2009-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 35-39, 146 N.M. 319, 210 P.3d 216 (rejecting a claim that a 11 confession should have been suppressed in light of the defendant’s alleged 12 methamphetamine use, despite the “disjointed and rambling quality” to some of the 13 defendant’s “long and, at times, nonsensical responses,” where the district court 14 “viewed with skepticism [the d]efendant’s claims” and after a full hearing, where 15 there was “no indication in the record that the law enforcement officers who 16 interrogated [the d]efendant were aware of his purportedly vulnerable mental state,” 17 and where the district court ultimately determined after a full ev identiary hearing that 18 the defendant “was in full control of hi s faculties” when the interviews took place 194 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although Defendant continues to assert that the 1 conflicting evidence and inferences would s upport a different result, [MIO 3-4, 9] on 2 appeal we are not at libertyto re-weigh the evidence. See generally State v. Neal, 3 2007-NMSC-043, ¶ 15, 142 N.M. 176, 164 P.3d 57 (observing, with respect to 4 suppression orders, that on appeal “we do not sit as trier of fact, recognizing that the 5 district court has the best vantage from which to resolve questions of fact and to 6 evaluate witness credibility . . . [t]herefore, we review the facts in the light most 7 favorable to the prevailing party, deferring to the district court’s factual findings so 8 long as substantial evidence exists to s upport those findings”). We therefore reject 9 Defendant’s argument. 10
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 11 disposition and above, we affirm. 12
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 185 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2