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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 32,245 4 RAUL SOTO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 1 Raul Soto (Defendant) appeals fro m the judgment and order partially 2 suspending his sentence. [RP 200] Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of 3 robbery, a third degree felony, and bribery of a witness (threats) (reporting), a third 4 degree felony. [Id.] Defendant contends that the State did not present sufficient 5 evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty 6 of the convicted offenses. [DS 9] Th e calendar notice proposed summary affirmance. 7 [Ct. App. File, CN1] Defendant has f iled a memorandum in opposition that we have 8 duly considered. [Ct. App. File, MIO] Unpersuaded, however, we affirm Defendant’s 9 convictions. 10 DISCUSSION 11 “The test for sufficiency of the ev idence is whether substantial evidence of 12 either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a 13 reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. 14 Duran , 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 (internal quotation marks 15 and citation omitted). When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court 16 “does not evaluate the evidence to determine whether some hypothesis could be 17 designed which is consistent with a finding of innocence.” State v. Graham , 18 2005-NMSC-004, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 197, 109 P.3d 285 (internal quotation marks and 19citation omitted). Instead, “[w]e view th e evidence as a whole and indulge all 1 reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict,” id. , while at the same time asking 2 whether “ anyrational trier of fact could have f ound the essential elements of the crime 3 beyond a reasonable doubt,” id. ¶ 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 We measure the sufficiencyof the evidence against the jury instructions. See 5 State v. Smith , 104 N.M. 729, 730, 726 P.2d 883, 884 (Ct. App. 1986) (“Jury 6 instructions become the law of the case ag ainst which the sufficiency of the evidence 7 is to be measured.”). The jury was instru cted that in order to find Defendant guilty of 8 robbery as charged in Count 1, it must find the following elements of the crime 9 beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) Defendant took and carried away a CD player, U.S. 10 currency, and/or a jacket from Steven Cabrales (the victim), or from his immediate 11 control, intending to perman ently deprive the victim of the property; (2) Defendant 12 took the CD player, U.S. currency and/or j acket by force or violence; and (3) this 13 happened in New Mexico on or about December 16, 2008. [RP 178] 14 The jury was also instructed that in order find Defendant guilty of intimidation 15 of a witness, it must find the following elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 16 doubt: (1) Defendant knowingly intimidated or threatened with intent to keep the 17 victim from truthfully reporting to a law enforcement officer information related to 18 the commission or possible commission of robbery; and (2) this happened in New 19Mexico on or about December 16, 2008. [RP 180] The jury was also instructed that 1 Defendant may be found guilty of a crime even though he himself did not do the acts 2 constituting the crime if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Defendant 3 intended the crime be committed; (2) th e crime was committed; and (3) Defendant 4 helped, encouraged, or caused the crime to be committed. [RP 181] I n t h e 5 memorandum, Defendant confirms that the State presented the following testimony 6 to support Defendant’s convicti ons for robbery and intimidation of a witness. On or 7 about December 16, 2008, Defendant, Daniel Pena, and the victim were at a party at 8 Frances Gonzales’s house drinking several beers. [DS 4, MIO 1] The foursome 9 continued drinking throughout the evening and later decided to move on to another 10 party at Defendant’s house. [Id.] The vic tim and Ms. Gonzales arrived in the victim’s 11 car at Defendant’s house near midnight. [Id.] Ms. Gonzales left the victim’s car and 12 subsequently told him she was going to party with Mr. Pena and Defendant. [Id.] As 13 the victim was leaving, Mr. Pena appro ached his vehicle and argued about why Ms. 14 Gonzales was with the victim when Mr. Pena was dating Ms. Gonzales. [DS 5, MIO 15 2] The victim drove off but then turn ed around to go back; he saw Defendant’s car 16 was blocking the road. [Id.] Mr. Pena approached the vi ctim’s car and hit the victim 17 in the head in the te mple area. [Id.] The victim b ecame disoriented, crashed his car, 18 and then exited the vehicle. [Id.] Mr. Pena and the victim then traded blows. [DS 5- 196, MIO 2] The victim testified that while he was fighting Mr. Pena, someone struck 1 him from behind and he fell to the ground. [DS 6, MIO 2] The victim then saw and 2 felt Mr. Pena and Defendant ki cking and striking him. [Id. ] The victim testified that 3 Defendant then told Mr. Pena to take the CD player out of the victim’s car; Defendant 4 demanded and took all the money the vic tim had on him (about $50); and Defendant 5 told the victim not to call th e cops because “we’ll get you and your family.” [Id.] The 6 investigating officer testified that there were beer cans strewn on the premises and that 7 the victim had injuries on his temple, sc ratches on his back, and blood behind his left 8 ear. [DS 7, MIO 3] Ms. G onzales testified that she saw Defendant and Mr. Pena take 9 the victim’s stereo and his jacket and th at Defendant later admitted that he took $50 10 from the victim. [DS 8, MIO 3] After the State presented its evidence, Defendant 11 twice moved for a directed verdict. [DS 8] The district court denied Defendant’s 12 motions and the defense rested. [Id.] Based on the summary of the trial 13 evidence presented in the doc keting statement, we proposed to affirm Defendant’s 14 convictions. [Ct. App. File, CN1] Inthe memorandum, Defendant does not present 15 facts or authorities that persuade us th at the proposed disposition was incorrect or 16 inappropriate. Rather, De fendant points out that, on cross-examination, Ms. 17 Gonzales’s admitted that she had consumed at least twelve beers the night of the 18 incidents and that she later stated that she did not see Defendant or Mr. Pena with the 19victim’s car stereo orjacket. [MIO 3] These cons iderations, however, relate to the 1 weight and credibility of Ms. Gonzales’ te stimony, which are matters for the jury to 2 decide, and, as such, they do not provide a basis for this Court to reverse the jury’s 3 verdict. See State v. Riggs , 114 N.M. 358, 362-63, 838 P.2d 975, 979-80 (1992) 4 (rejecting the defendant’s argument that a witn ess was not credible, stating “[t]he jury, 5 and not this court, however, resolves ques tions of credibility and the weight to be 6 given to testimony”). Moreover, in addition to Ms. Gonzales’s testimony, the 7 victim’s testimony as to what he saw and felt that night provided substantial evidence, 8 which the jury adjudged as credible, to support Defendant’s convictions. 9 CONCLUSION 10 We hold that the State presented subs tantial evidence to support Counts 1 and 11 3, and we therefore affirm Defendant’s convictions. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

__________________________________ 17 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 18__________________________________ 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2