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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36218 4 ROBERT HOLGUIN, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Fernando Macias, 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, Assistant Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant has appealed from his conviction of trafficking methamphetamine 18 by possession with intent to distribute. We previously issued a notice of proposed 192 summary disposition in which we proposedto affirm. Defendant has filed a 1 memorandum in opposition. After due consid eration, we remain unpersuaded. We 2 therefore affirm. 3
{2} The pertinent background information was set forth in the notice of proposed 4 summary disposition. We will avoid undue repetition here, and focus instead on the 5 content of the memorandum in opposition. 6
{3} Defendant continues to argue that the St ate failed to present sufficient evidence 7 to establish that he possessed methamphetamine beyond a reas onable doubt. [MIO 3- 8 8] Defendant argues that th e State failed to prove constructive possession because the 9 car did not belong to Defendant and there were two other pa ssengers present in it prior 10 to the search. [MIO 5-8] “For possession, the [s]tate must prove physical or 11 constructive possession of the object, withknowledge of the object’s presence and 12 [illegal] character[.]” State v. Maes , 1970-NMCA-053, ¶ 25, 81 N.M. 550, 469 P.2d 13 529. 14 Constructive possession exists when the accused has knowledge of the 15 presence of the [controlled substance] and control over it. Where a 16 person is not in exclusive posse ssion of the premises, it cannot be 17 inferred that the person knew that [a controlled substance was] present 18 and had control over the [controlled substance] unless there are other 19 incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an 20 inference. 213 State v. Bowers , 1974-NMCA-135, ¶ 15, 87 N.M. 74, 529 P.2d 300 (emphasis added) 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the State presented evidence that 2 Defendant had on his person empty baggies with similar designs as the baggies 3 containing methamphetamine that were locatedin the jacket found in the vehicle. [DS 4 5] Coupled with the evidence of two glass pi pes also located in th at jacket, additional 5 two glass pipes with white re sidue located under Defendant’s seat, and a digital scale 6 and additional baggies with methamphetami ne located on the front floor board in 7 close proximity to Defendant, [DS 5] we hold that the State presented sufficient 8 circumstantial evidence to support the in ference that Defendant knew of the 9 methamphetamine and exercised control over it. [Id.] Specifically, the baggies found 10 on Defendant’s person connected him to the methamphetamine found in the jacket, 11 which in turn connected him to the me thamphetamine found on the floor board, the 12 combined effect of which was to sup port the inference of ownership of the 13 methamphetamine and, therefore, knowledgeof its presence and control over it; the 14 additional evidence of drug paraphernalia s upported the inference of knowledge of the 15 substance’s nature. See State v. Morales , 2002-NMCA-052, ¶ 29, 132 N.M. 146, 45 16 P.3d 406 (“[T]his Court must be able to articulate a reasonable an alysis that the [fact 17 finder] might have used to de termine knowledge and control.”), overruled on other 18 grounds by State v. Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110. While the 194 memorandum in opposition relies on De fendant’s testimony that the 1 methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia belonged to hi s passengers, [MIO 7] the 2 applicable standard of review requires us to disregard this evidence. See State v. Rojo , 3 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (“In reviewing the sufficiency 4 of the evidence used to support a conviction, we resolve all disputed facts in favor of 5 the [s]tate, indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict, and disregard 6 all evidence and inferences to the c ontrary.”). Therefore, we affirm. 7
{4} In addition, Defendant has moved to amend the docketing statement to 8 challenge his possession of paraphernalia convic tion based on the sufficiency of the 9 State’s evidence with respect to the element of possession. [MIO 1, 3] We hereby 10 deny Defendant’s motion. See State v. Moore , 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 11 119, 782 P.2d 91 (holding that this Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues 12 that are not viable, even if they alle ge fundamental or jurisdictional error), superceded 13 by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado , 1991-NMCA-044, 112 14 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. As Defendant acknowle dges, plastic baggies of “the type 15 used . . . to package methamphetamine” were found in his “front pants pocket[,]” and 16 Defendant admitted that they belonged to hi m. [MIO 2-3] We hold that this evidence 17 is sufficient to establish actual possession. See UJI 14-130 NMRA (“A person is in 18 possession of [an object] when, on the occasion in question, he knows what it is, he 195 knows it is on his person or in his presence and he exercises cont rol over it.”). [RP 96] 1 As such, we find Defendant’s discussion of constructive posse ssion unpersuasive and 2 irrelevant. [MIO 3-8] To the extent Defendant challenges th e sufficiency of the State’s 3 evidence to establish that he “intended to us e the paraphernalia to . . . pack [or] re4 pack . . . a controlled substance[,]” [RP 95; MIO 4-5] we are similarly unpersuaded. 5 As we mentioned above, the State pr esented evidence that methamphetamine 6 packaged in similar baggies was discovere d in close proximity to Defendant. [DS 5] 7 We hold that this evidence is sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to infer that 8 Defendant intended to use the empty baggies found on his person for the same 9
purpose. See State v. Durant , 2000-NMCA-066, ¶ 15, 129 N.M. 345, 7 P.3d 495 10 (“Intent can rarely be proved directlyand often is proved by circumstantial 11 evidence.”). While the memorandum in opposition relies on Defendant’s testimony 12 that he carried these baggies to keep small screws he needed for work, [MIO 3] as we 13 stated previously, we mustdisregard such evidence. See Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19. 14 Therefore, we deny Defendant’s motion to amend. 15
{5} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 16 summary disposition, we deny Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement 17 and affirm. 18
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 196 _____________________________ 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

__________________________________ 4 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 5

__________________________________ 6 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 7