IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 29,119 4 DAVID MUNOZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 12 Stephanie Erin Brunson 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 17 Defendant appeals from the judgment and order partially suspending sentence, 18 convicting him, after a jury trial, of burgl ary of a vehicle and resisting, evading or 19 obstructing an officer. [RP 117] Defendant raises two issues on appeal, contending 20 that (1) there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict Defendant of burglary 212 of a vehicle; and (2) there was insufficient evidence for the district court to find 1 Defendant was the same pers on alleged in the supplemental criminal information. 2 [DS 4, 7] This Court’s calendar notice propos ed summary affirmance. [Ct. App. File, 3 CN1] Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, pursuant to State v. Franklin , 4 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer , 103 N.M. 655, 658- 5 60, 712 P.2d 1, 3-4 (Ct. App. 1985). [Ct. App. File, MIO] Unpersuaded, we affirm. 6 DISCUSSION 7 1. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Vehicle Burglary Conviction 8 Substantial evidence review requires analysis of whether direct or 9 circumstantial substantial evidence exists and supports a verdict of guilt beyond a 10 reasonable doubt with respect to every el ement essential for conviction. “We 11 determine whether a rational factfinder coul d have found that each element of the 12 crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kent , 2006-NMCA-134, 13 ¶10, 140 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86 (citations omitted). On appeal, the appellate court 14 views the evidence in the light most favorab le to the verdict, resolving all conflicts 15 and indulging all reasonable inferen ces in favor of the verdict. State v. Apodaca , 118 16 N.M. 762, 765-66, 887 P.2d 756, 759-60 (1994). 17 In this case, the jury was instructed that in order for them to convict Defendant 18 of burglary of a vehicle, the State was required to prove to the satisfaction of the jury 193 beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: (1) Defendant 1 entered a vehicle without authorization; (2 ) Defendant entered the vehicle with the 2 intent to commit a theft when inside; (3 ) this happened in New Mexico on or about 3 February 9, 2008; and (4) Defendant acted intentionally when he committed the crime. 4 [RP 73, 76] “Jury instructions become the law of the case against which the 5 sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured.” State v. Smith , 104 N.M. 729, 730, 6 726 P.2d 883, 884 (Ct. App. 1986). 7 At trial, the State presented the follo wing evidence in support of the burglary 8 charge. On February 9, 2008, Officer Johnson, who testified at trial [RP 63], was 9 dispatched to Monte Vista street in DoñaAna county, New Mexico, in reference to 10 a report of two suspicious male persons. [RP 31] As the offi cer approached No. 108 11 of the Valle Vista apartment complex in his police unit, he noticed a large bundle on 12 the sidewalk behind a vehicle stopped in reverse at this apartment. [Id.] As the officer 13 came close to the vehicle, he noticed a person, later identified as Defendant, on the 14 passenger side below the dash board peeking out to check the on th e police unit. [Id.] 15 The passenger door was not completely closedand it was not wide open. [Id.] The 16 officer exited the police vehicle and met Defendant as he was getting out of the 17 vehicle. [Id.] Defendant looked surprised and intoxicated. [Id.] The officer asked 18 Defendant if the vehicle belonged to him and he stated that it did. [Id.] When the 194 officer asked for identification and to see the registration of the vehicle, however, 1 Defendant stated that he did not have identification and th at the vehicle did not belong 2 to him but to a friend, and he could not provide the friend’s name. [Id.] The officer 3 noticed that Defendant was looking for an escape route. [Id.] The officer told 4 Defendant he needed to verify the owners hip of the vehicle and that he would need 5 to handcuff Defendant while he did so. [RP 31-32] Defendant refused to be 6 handcuffed, ran from the officer, and eventu ally was apprehende d. [RP 32] The 7 owner of the vehicle, Josue Bustamante, testified [RP 63] that he did not know 8 Defendant and that hehad never given anyonepermission to enter his vehicle, which 9 had been locked and secured prior to Defendant’s entry. [Id.] 10 In the memorandum, Defendant conte nds that there was no evidence that 11 Defendant entered the car with anything other than innocent motives. [MIO 5] 12 Defendant asserts that he was at a nearby party, wh ere he enjoyed a number of 13 libations and he had gone to his friend’s car, inorder to retrieve hi s cigarettes. [Id.] 14 He further contends that the jury could not infer from any stolenitems that Defendant 15 had entered the car intending to steal, becau se no stolen items were ever recovered. 16 [MIO 5-6] We are not persuaded. 17 We hold that the State presented subs tantial evidence to support the jury’s 18 decision to convict Defendant of burgl ary of a vehicle. Although Defendant 195 contended that the owner of the vehicle had given him permission to enter it to get 1 some cigarettes, Defendant did not know the name of the owner of the vehicle and 2 could not accurately describe hi m. [Id.] Defendant also contended that he ran because 3 he knew he had outstanding warrants and did not want to go to jail. [Id.] Defendant 4 could not explain how the trunk of the vehicle was unlocked or how the bundle behind 5 the vehicle got there. [Id.] Given the officer’s and the owner’s testimony, the jury 6 was not required to believe Defendant’s version of the events. State v. Rojo , 7 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P. 2d 829 (“Contrary evidence supporting 8 acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal because the jury is free to reject 9 Defendant’s version of the facts.”); see also State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 10 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (“The reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or 11 substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence 12 to support the verdict.”). 13 We affirm Defendant’s conviction for burglary of a vehicle. 14 2. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Supplemental Criminal 15 Information 16 Once the State presents a prima facie case showing identity, prior conviction, 17 and timing, the burden to present proof of invalidity will shift to the defendant, and 18 he will be required to produce evid ence in support of his defense. State v. Simmons , 19 2006-NMSC-044, ¶ 13, 140 N.M. 311, 142 P.3d 899. “The burden of making a prima 206 facie case is not onerous on the [s]tate.” Id. ¶ 14. 1 In this case, the State presented documents reflecting three prior convictions 2 within the past ten years, with photos of Defendant, and including hi s date of birth and 3 social security number. [DS 4] Under the circumstances, we hold that the State 4 presented a prima facie cas e showing identity, prior conviction, and timing, and 5 therefore, the burden to present proof of invalidity shifted to Defendant. While 6 Defendant denied being the person having these convicti ons, he produced no evidence 7 in support of this defense. Moreover, while Defendant argued that the State’s 8 documents were lacking in foundation, Defendant was unable to explain why the birth 9 dates and social security numbers on the documents matched his own. [Id., MIO 6] 10 See State v. Elliott , 2001-NMCA-108, ¶ 35, 131 N.M. 390, 37 P.3d 107 (stating that 11 “[t]he standard of proof applicable to th e establishment of a prior felony conviction 12 for the purpose of a habitual offender enhancement . . . is preponderance of the 13 evidence.”). Defendant did not sustain hi s burden to produce evidence to invalidate 14 the State’s showing. 15 We affirm the district court’s decision to attribute the three prior convictions 16 as belonging to this Defendant. 17

CONCLUSION 187 We affirm Defendant’s convictions. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

___________________________________ 3 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 4 WE CONCUR : 5

___________________________ 6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 7

___________________________ 8 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 9