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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,937 4 KEITH MCNEW, 5 Defendant-Appellant

. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COURT 7 Christina Argyres, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant, Keith McNew, appeals from th e district court’s order revoking his 18 probation. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm. 192 Defendant has responded with a timely memorandum in opposition, which we have 1 duly considered. We remain unpersuade d that our initial proposed summary 2 disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm. 3 DISCUSSION 4 {2} Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred in revoking his 5 probation because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was in possession 6 of a controlled substance or that he viol ated state law by fleei ng from a police officer. 7 [DS 6; MIO 7-10] “We review a trial c ourt’s probation revocation decision under an 8 abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Orquiz , 2003-NMCA-089, ¶ 4, 134 N.M. 157, 9 74 P.3d 91. “In a probation revocation proceeding, the [s]tate bears the burden of 10 establishing a probation violation with a reasonable certainty.” State v. Leon , 11 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 36, 292 P.3d 493. “Proof of a probation violation need not be 12 established beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Green , 2015-NMCA-007, 341 P.3d 13 10, ¶ 22, cert. denied, 2014-NMCERT-012, 344 P.3d. 987. In reviewing a challenge 14 to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a probation revocation “we view the 15 evidence in a light most favorable to the [state], indulging all reasonable inferences 16 and resolving all conflicts to uphold the [district] court’s decision.” In re Bruno R ., 17 2003-NMCA-057, ¶ 9, 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339. 18 {3} Based on our review of the record and Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, 193 we understand the relevant proceedings to be as follows. On May 15, 2015, the State 1 filed its amended third motion to revoke Defendant’s probation. [RP 120] In the 2 motion, the State alleged in relevant part that Defendant violated a standard condition 3 of probation which required that he not violate any laws of the State of New Mexico 4 by resisting, evading, and obstructing an o fficer and for trafficking in a controlled 5 substance. [RP 122] As a second basis for revocation, the State alleged that Defendant 6 was in possession of heroin in violation of a standard condition which required that 7 he not possess any controlled substances. [RP 122] 8 {4} On July 8, 2015, the district court held a hearing on the motion to revoke 9 probation. The docketing statement and th e memorandum in opposition recite that at 10 the revocation hearing, Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Deputy Welsey Barnes testified 11 that he was dispatched after a report of a man in a parking lot wearing a red jersey and 12 waving a gun in a Pontiac. [DS 4; MIO 3] When Deputy Barnes arrived at the scene 13 he saw a Pontiac with the reported license plate and saw someone standing outside the 14 car wearing a red jersey. [DS 4; MIO 3] Deputy Barnes activated his emergency 15 lights, and the person in the red jersey be gan to run. [MIO 3] Deputy Barnes pursued 16 him and ordered the man to stop, and Defendant eventually complied. [DS 4; MIO 3] 17 Deputy Barnes then detained the man, who he identified as Defendant. [DS 4] Deputy 18 Barnes also testified that when he patte d Defendant down, hediscovered 1.3 ounces 194 of a tar like substance in Defendant’s pants. [MIO 3] The substance field tested 1 positive for heroin. [DS 4-5; MIO 3] The district court ultimately determined that 2 Defendant committed both alleged violati ons and revoked his probation. [RP 130] 3 {5} Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support both findings. 4 We first address Defendant’s argument that the evidence wa s insufficient to establish 5 that he violated probation by fleeing or ev ading Deputy Barnes. [MIO 9] We disagree. 6 Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we believe that Deputy 7 Barnes’ testimony that Defendant ran awayafter Deputy Barnes activated his lights 8 and ordered him to stop ade quately supports a finding that Defendant violated state 9 law by evading an officer. See State v. Gutierrez , 2007-NMSC-033, ¶ 30, 142 N.M. 10 1, 162 P.3d 156 (determining that Section 30-22- 1(B) applies to situations in which 11 an officer is attempting to make a temporary investigative seizure or Terry stop); 12 NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1(B) (1981) (defining resisting, evading or obstructing an 13 officer to consist of intentionally fleeing or evading an officer of this state when the 14 person committing the act of fleeing, attempting to evade or evasion has knowledge 15 that the officer is attempting to apprehend or arrest him); see also In re Bruno R ., 16 2003-NMCA-057, ¶ 9 (stating that in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence 17 contention, we view the ev idence in a light most favorable to the prosecution); State 18 v. Sanchez , 2001-NMCA-060, ¶ 13, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (stating that a 195 probation violation must be proved to a reasonable certainty, such that a reasonable 1 and impartial mind would believe that the defendant violated the terms of probation). 2 {6} Defendant argues that the evidence was in sufficient to show that he knew that 3 Deputy Barnes was an officer attempting to arre st or detain him. [MIO 9] We believe, 4 however, that the district court could conc lude that Defendant was aware that Deputy 5 Barnes was attempting to stop him based on the officer’s testimony that Defendant 6 took off running when Deputy Barnes activated his emergency lights and that he 7 continued to run while Deputy Barnes pursu ed him and ordered him to stop before 8 eventually complying. [MIO 3] See State v. Maez , 2009-NMCA-108, ¶ 25, 147 N.M. 9 91, 217 P.3d 104 (rejecting the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient 10 evidence that he knew the officer was attempting to apprehend him where the 11 defendant fled the scene of anaccident after the officer ac tivated his lights, the officer 12 was yelling loudly, and it was daytime). We therefore affirm the district court’s 13 revocation of Defendant’s probation on this basis. 14 {7} Defendant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he 15 violated his probation by being in possessi on of a controlled substance. [MIO 7-8] 16 Defendant argues that the district court improperly based its determination on the 17 results of a field test, which was not shown to be reliable. [MIO 7-8] However, as we 18 have determined that sufficient grounds exist to support revocation on the first basis 196 alleged in the motion, it is not necessary to address these arguments, and we therefore 1 do not reach the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support this 2 allegation of probation violation. See Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37 (stating that 3 “although [the d]efendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each 4 of his probation violations, if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, 5 we will find the district c ourt’s order was proper”); see also Green , 2015-NMCA-007, 6 ¶ 21, n.3, (declining to reach the issu e of whether sufficient evidence supported 7 revocation of the defendant’s probation on the remaining alleged grounds where the 8 Court found sufficient evidence of a violation on one ground). 9 {8} For these reasons, we affirm the district court. 10 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

_____________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13

WE CONCUR: 14

__________________________________ 15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 16

__________________________________ 17 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 187