This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. No. 30,295 9 VICTOR MORENO, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY 12 Drew D. Tatum, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 17 Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 SUTIN, Judge. 222 Defendant appeals his conviction of trafficking by possession with intent to 1 distribute. In particular, he contends that the evidence establishing possession was 2 insufficient. In our second notice, we proposed to affirm the conviction. Defendant 3 has timely responded to our proposed summary disposition. We have considered his 4 arguments and not being persuaded, we affirm. 5 Constructive possession exists when th e accused has knowledge of drugs and 6 exercises control over them. State v. Brietag , 108 N.M. 368, 370, 772 P.2d 898, 900 7 (Ct. App. 1989). If he does not have exclusive control over the premises where the 8 drugs are found, the mere presence of the contraband is not enough to support an 9 inference of constructive possession. “A dditional circumstances or incriminating 10 statements are required.” State v. Phillips , 2000-NMCA-028, ¶ 8, 128 N.M. 777, 999 11 P.2d 421. In our second notice, we referred to those additional circumstances in 12 proposing to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive 13 possession. 14 The cocaine was found in the room bel onging to Filberto Villegas. Defendant 15 was in the room, along with three others, including Filberto. [RP 120, 158] Defendant 16 asserts that he had considerably less connec tion with the room than the owners of the 17 home. [MIO 7] It appears, however, that Defendant spent a good deal of time in the 18 room watching television and playing video games. [RP 37-38, 103] The cocaine was 193 located in a wine glass on a shelf in Filb erto’s room. We pointed out that forged 1 identification cards for Defendant were al so located on that shelf. [RP 38, 111-12] 2 Defendant states that there were other things on that shelf that were not in any way 3 connected to him. [MIO 3] The State was not obligated to account for and connect 4 every item found on the shelf to Defendant. See State v. Muniz , 110 N.M. 799, 801, 5 800 P.2d 734, 736 (Ct. App. 1990). Defendant’s forged identification cards were on 6 the shelf in Filberto’s room, along with the cocaine. 7 The police also found a scale containi ng cocaine residue under a chair near 8 where Defendant had been sitti ng. [RP 38, 111; State’s MIO 3] In the bedroom that 9 was identified as Defendant’s, the police f ound the box for the scale. [RP 110] They 10 also found a number of plastic baggies with cut corners in Defendant’s bedroom. [RP 11 109-10, 159] In Defendant’s pants pockets, police found three other plastic baggies, 12 a small amount of marijuana in a separate bag, and $299 in cash. [RP 121] There was 13 testimony that plastic baggies with corners cut off are consistent with trafficking, as 14 is the amount of cash on hand. [RP 114, 122-24] 15 The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendant 16 had knowledge of and exercise d control over the cocaine th at was found in Filberto’s 17 bedroom. See State v. Barber , 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 28, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 18(noting that evidence establishing directconnection between drugs and the accused 1 can create an inference of contro l needed for proof of possession). 2 For the reasons stated herein and inour second calendar notice, we affirm 3 Defendant’s conviction. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 5

__________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 12