May 20, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Felipe Larez, No. A-1-CA-37784

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/20/2019 9:08 AM

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Mark Reynolds

/
FELIPE LAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

2 oo

|

EAL
8] Kea W. Riggs, District Judge

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUN

\O

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

11

12

yy

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

13
14

Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM

15
16

for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION

17

18

VARGAS, Judge.

4} Defendant appeals from his conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an

19

officer. This Court’s notice of proposed disposition proposed summary affirmance.

20

21

Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. We are not

persuaded by Defendant’s arguments and proceed to summarily affirm.

—

~

\O

—
=]

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

support the third element of the charge, which instructed: “[D]efendant resisted or

abused [the police officer] in the lawful discharge of [his] duties.” [DS 5; RP 254] As

testified at trial that he did not believe he was obstructing the officer, but that the
officer was showing off in front of another officer in training when he took Defendant
down to the ground. [MIO 5] Insofar as Defer
officer’s testimony, the jury could disbelieve him, and it is for the fact-finder to
resolve any conflict in the testimony and to determine the weight and credibility of
the evidence. See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, { 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482
(recognizing that it is for the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the
witnesses and to determine their weight and credibility); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-

NMSC-001, 7 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (stating that the jury can reject the
defendant’s testimony and the appellate court disregards all evidence and inferences
that support a different result).

3} As to whether the officer was acting in the lawful discharge of his duties,
Defendant asserts that the officer did not suspect him of committing a crime, but

arrested him because he would not leave the sidewalk, where Defendant asserts he

had a right to stand. [MIO 5] Defendant cites the holding in State v. Frazier, that the

—

~J

Ke)

—
fam)

11

12

—
Wo

14

15

16

17

18

19

detained the defendant, so her resistance did not give the officer probable cause to

support her arrest. 1975-NMCA-074, 7 15, 88 N.M. 103, 537 P.2d 711. We are not

the “[the dJefendant was not acting in any manner to warrant the police officer to use
force in order to detain her.” Jd. In contrast, here, there was evidence that following

a heated conversation, in which Defendant used profanities and became increasingly
agitated, the officer asked Defendant to leave his “scene” as he prepared the car for
an inventory search, causing Defendant to yell “this is America motherfucker” and
move toward the officer. [DS 4]-It was this behavior that caused the officer to grab
Defendant by the shirt and take him down. [Id.] The officer testified that Defendant
then reached for his gun on the opposite side of his body; the officer felt the gun
being tugged, but it did not come unholstered. [MIO 2] To the extent Defendant
testified that he never reached for the officer’s gun, “the jury is free to reject [the
dJefendant’s version of the facts.” [MIO 3] Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, 19.

4) Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to support the verdict, we
conclude that there was substantial evidence to support Défendant’s conviction. See

State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, 4 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (“In

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light

—

—_
Qo Oo

12
13

14
15

all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.”); State v. Salgado, 1999-NMSC-
008, ¥ 25; 126 N.M. 691, 974 P.2d 661 (defining substantial evidence as “such
relevant evidence as a reasoné
conclusion”).

{5} For all of these reasons, and those stated in our notice of proposed disposition,
we affirm.

6; ITISSO ORDERED.

WE CONCTUR:

*

yD

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge