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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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. 34,145 4 DAVID A. ENRIQUEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant David Enriquez appeals from his conviction for possession of 1 cocaine, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. In this 2 Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to affirm. Defendant filed a 3 memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded 4 by Defendant’s arguments and therefore affirm. 5 {2} In our calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that there was sufficient 6 evidence from which the jury could conc lude that Defendant had knowledge and 7 control of the cocaine. Defendant res ponded with a memorandum in opposition, in 8 which he recites the same facts and conti nues to raise the same arguments that he 9 made in his docketing statement. Because we have already addressed Defendant’s 10 arguments in detail in our notice of propos ed disposition, we refer Defendant to our 11 responses therein. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 12 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly he ld that, in summary calendar cases, the 13 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in 14 fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 15 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward 16 and specifically point out errors of law a nd fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments 17 does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on ot her grounds as stated in 18 State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. 193 {3} To the extent that Defendant asserts that the State failed to establish that he had 1 knowledge of the “very small piece of sa ran wrap containing cocaine” because he 2 denied ownership of the cocaine, there was evidence that he “appeared shocked [when 3 the] cocaine was discovered in his wife’s car[,]” and the officer testified that 4 “someone getting in and out of the car . . . would not have seen the substance or 5 known that it was present[,]” we are not pers uaded. [MIO 6, 7] As we stated in our 6 calendar notice, “[c]ontrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for 7 reversal because the jury is free to reject Defendant ’s version of the facts.” State v. 8 Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; see also State v. Salas , 9 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for the 10 factfinder to resolve any conf lict in the testim ony of the witnesses and to determine 11 where the weight and credibility lay); State v. Sutphin , 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 12 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (stating that we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute 13 our judgment for that of the factfinder as l ong as there is sufficient evidence to support 14 the verdict). 15 {4} For the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we 16 affirm. 17 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

__________ ______________________ 194 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 1

WE CONCUR: 2

________________________________ 3 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 4

________________________________ 5 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 6