This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 35,924 4 FRANCES G. OCHOA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 Angie K. Schneider, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant appeals her c onvictions for shoplifting (over $500) and conspiracy 182 to shoplift. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. De fendant has responded 1 with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded that our calendar notice was 2 incorrect, we affirm the district court judgment and sentence. 3 {2} Defendant continues to challenges the su fficiency of the evidence to support her 4 convictions for shoplifting (over $500) and conspiracy to shoplift (over $500). A 5 sufficiency of the evidence review involves a two-step process. Initially, the evidence 6 is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Then the appellate court must 7 make a legal determination of “whether the evidence viewed inthis manner could 8 justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the crime charged has 9 been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Apodaca , 1994-NMSC-121, 10 ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 11 {3} In order to convict Defendant of thes e two offenses, the evidence had to show 12 that Defendant took merchandise valued over $500 without intending to pay for it, and 13 acted in concert with another individual who also agreed to participate in the 14 shoplifting. [RP 116, 118] Here, the State presented evidence through the testimony 15 of a witness and a video that indicated Defendant and a man went through a self16 checkout together, and Defendant placed so me of the items in the bag without them 17 being scanned by herself or the other indivi dual. [MIO 1; DS 3] Among the items that 18 was not scanned was an expensive baby monitor. [MIO 1; DS 3] Defendant admitted 193 her plan to take some of the items, but she denied an intent to take the baby monitor. 1 [MIO 2; DS 3] The jury, sitting as fact-fi nder, was free to reject Defendant’s claim 2 that she did not intend to steal the baby monitor. [MIO 5] See State v. Sutphin , 1988- 3 NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (noting that the fact-finder is free to 4 reject a defendant’s version of events). The jury could also reasonably infer that 5 Defendant and the other indi vidual conspired to go through the self-check out lane 6 without paying for some of the items. See State v. Gallegos , 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 45, 7 149 N.M. 704, 254 P.3d 655 (noting that conspiracyis a clandestine crime, and a jury 8 may infer the existence of an agreement based on conduct and the surrounding 9 circumstances). 10 {4} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 11 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

__________________ ______________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

_______________________________ 16 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 17

_______________________________ 18 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 19