This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,042 9 MANUEL TRUJILLO, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OFCURRY COUNTY 12 Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 17 Karl Erich Martell, Assi stant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 FRY, Chief Judge. 22 Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction 23 after a jury trial for possession of a controlled substance, contrary to NMSA 1978, 242 Section 30-31-23 (1995) (amended 2006). [DS 2] Defendant raises this issue 1 pursuant to State v. Franklin , 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P. 2d 982, 984 (1967) and State 2 v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60, 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (C t. App. 1985). [DS 3; MIO 1] We 3 issued a calendar notice proposing to summarily affirm Defendant’s conviction. 4 Defendant filed a timely memorandum in oppos ition, which we have duly considered. 5 We affirm. 6 DISCUSSION 7 “Substantial evidence review requires analysis of whether direct or 8 circumstantial substantial evidence exists and supports a verdict of guilt beyond a 9 reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential for conviction. We 10 determine whether a rational [fact finder] could have found that each element of the 11 crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kent , 2006-NMCA-134, 12 ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86 (c itation omitted). On appeal , we view the evidence 13 in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolving all conflic ts and indulging all 14 reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. Apodaca , 118 N.M. 762, 765- 15 66, 887 P.2d 756, 759-60 (1994). 16 In order to convict Defendant of possessi on of a controlled substance, the State 17 was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Defendant had 18 methamphetamine in his possession, and (2) he knew it was methamphetamine. See 19 UJI 14-3102 NMRA. [RP 95] As discussed in greater detail in the calendar notice, a 203 police officer testified that he found two pipes and a plastic bag with residue on 1 Defendant upon his arrest. [DS 2; RP 110-11] The evidence tested positive for 2 methamphetamine. [RP 110-14] In addition, Defendant testified that he admitted to 3 using methamphetamine and to having a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine. 4 [RP 115-16] Defendant’s response does notchallenge our understanding of the 5 evidence. We remain persuaded that the State introduced su fficient evidence that 6 Defendant had methamphetamine in hi s possession and thathe knew it was 7 methamphetamine. 8 Defendant continues to argue that he pres ented an alternate and credible version 9 of the events. [MIO 3] In his testimony, Defendant disputed that the pipe or bag 10 contained any trace of a controlled substan ce and suggested that the officer may have 11 tampered with the evidence. [MIO 1] Defendant also claimed that the officer 12 threatened to charge Defendant with possessi on after he refused to reveal the name of 13 his drug supplier. [MIO 1] As we statedin our calendar notice, the officer and the 14 forensic drug chemist testified that there wa s residue in the pipes and plastic bags that 15 tested positive for methamphetamine. [RP 110-14] In addition, the officer testified 16 about how he handled the evidence. [RP 110- 11] In light of the other evidence, the 17 jury was free to disregard Defendant’s version of events. See State v. Salas , 1999- 18 NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for the fact 19 finder to make credibility determinationsand resolve any conflict in witness 204 testimony). We remain persuaded that there was sufficient evidence to support 1 Defendant’s conviction for po ssession of methamphetamine. 2 CONCLUSION 3 We affirm. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 12