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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36790 4 JOSE EDDIE SANCHEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Aja Oishi, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Defendant Jose Eddie Sanchez appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of 18 aggravated battery (great bodily harm), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(C) 192 (1969). Although Defendant was also convictedof robbery and harassment, he only 1 disputes the “great bodily harm” aspect of the aggravated battery conviction on 2 appeal. In this Court’s notice of propos ed disposition, we proposed to summarily 3 affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum inopposition (MIO), wh ich we have duly 4 considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 5 {2} Defendant continues to arguethat the district court should have dismissed the 6 aggravated battery conviction because, although the State introduced sufficient 7 evidence to support a battery conviction, there was insufficien t evidence of great 8 bodily harm. However, Defendant has not presented any new facts, authority, or 9 argument that persuade this Court thatour notice of proposed disposition was 10 incorrect. [ See MIO 2-14] Indeed, notwithstanding his insistence that Victim’s being 11 airlifted to another hospital and spending a week in the intensive care unit does not 12 necessarily mean that his injuries were su ch that there was a hi gh probability of death 13 or permanent or prolonged impairment of th e use of any member or organ of the body, 14 and his contention that the jury could have found that the injury was merely a painful, 15 temporary disfigurement, we reiterate and conclude that the evidence presented was 16 sufficient to support the jury’s findings and verdict. [ See CN 1-7; MIO 7-14; see 17 also MIO 2-5] See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 18 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly he ld that, in summarycalendar cases, the 193 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in 1 fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 2 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice “must come 3 forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier 4 arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds 5 as stated in State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. 6 {3} Moreover, we reiterate that the jury wa s free to reject Defendant’s version of 7 the facts, it was for the jury to resolv e any conflicts and determine weight and 8 credibility in the testimony, and we do not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our 9 judgment for that of the jury, as long as there is sufficient ev idence to support the 10 verdict. See State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; State 11 v. Salas , 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482; State v. Griffin , 12 1993-NMSC-071, ¶ 17, 116 N.M. 689, 866 P.2d 1156. 13 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and 14 herein, we affirm De fendant’s conviction. 15 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

_______________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 18 WE CONCUR: 19

___________________________ 204 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 1

___________________________ 2 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge 3