This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 35,482 4 MARVIN PACHECO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Benjamin Chavez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant Marvin Pacheco appeals from his convictions after a jury trial of 1 shoplifting ($250 or less) and a ssault, both petty misdemeanor s. In this Court’s notice 2 of proposed disposition, we proposed to affirm. Defendant filed a timely 3 memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded 4 and therefore affirm Defendant’s convictions. 5 {2} On appeal, Defendant challenges the suffi ciency of the evidence to support his 6 convictions. [DS 4; MIO 2-4] In our calendar notice, we proposed to hold that there 7 was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for shoplifting ($250 or 8 less) because there was evidence presented at trial that Defendant took a CL10 Self9 Leveling 360-Degree Bosch Laser, priced at $229.00, from a shelf at Home Depot, 10 placed the item into a shopping cart, removed the security spider wrap and packaging 11 from the item, and walked with an unide ntified male pushing the shopping cart with 12 the laser past the cash registers on the date in question. [CN 2-4] Likewise, we 13 proposed to hold that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction 14 for assault because there was evidence presented at trial that Mike Caes, a loss 15 prevention officer at Home Depot, attempted to apprehend Defendant, and as 16 Defendant and Caes struggled, they fell tothe ground, and Defendant attempted to 17 punch Caes twice. [CN 2-4] 183 {3} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not point to any specific errors 1 in fact or in law in our calendar notice. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, 2 ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary 3 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly 4 point out errors in fact or law.”). Instead, Defendant argues that the State failed to 5 prove that he had the specific intent to co mmit each crime. [MIO 3-4] He asserts that 6 he did not push the shopping cart past the cas h registers; the jury was not instructed 7 on a theory of accessory liability; the State di d not charge Defendant with conspiracy, 8 “signaling that it is unclear whether the men were acting together to steal 9 merchandise”; and “he did not intentionally throw punches to [Caes’s ] face, but rather, 10 was reacting to the evolving physical nature of the situation.” [MIO 3-4] We are not 11 persuaded by these arguments. As Defendant acknowledges [MIO 4], the jury was free 12 to reject his version of what happened. See State v. Buchanan , 1966-NMSC-045, ¶ 4, 13 76 N.M. 141, 412 P.2d 565 (providing that an appellatecourt “will not substitute its 14 opinion for that of the jury” and the “judgmen t of the credibility of the witnesses and 15 the weight to be given their tes timony was the function of the jury”); State v. Foxen , 16 2001-NMCA-061, ¶ 17, 130 N.M. 670, 29 P.3d 1071 (providing that conflicts in the 17 evidence, including conflicts in the testimony of witnesses are to be resolved by the 18 factfinder; stating that the factfinder is free to reject the defendant’s version of events)
. 194 {4} Because the State presented evidence of every element of the crimes charged 1 and a reasonable jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant 2 committed those crimes, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support 3 Defendant’s convictions. 4 {5} For the reasons stated inour notice of proposed disposition and herein, we 5 affirm. 6 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________ ______________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 9
WE CONCUR: 10

________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 12

________________________________ 13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14