January 28, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Mark Chacon, No. A-1-CA-36986

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-36986
5 MARK CHACON,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Brett R. Loveless, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
19 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	William A. 0' Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 HANISEE, Judge.
18 	{t} 	Defendant has appealed from convictions for unlawful taking of a motor
19 vehicle, conspiracy, and interference with communications. We previously issued a
20 	notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 1/28/2019 9:51 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 convictions. 	Defendant 	has 	filed 	a 	memorandum 	in 	opposition. 	After 	due
2 consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
3 	{2} 	The pertinent background information and applicable principles were set out
4 in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid unnecessary repetition
5 here, focusing _instead on the content of the memorandum in opposition.
6 	{3} 	Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. [MIO 1-5]
7 However, the testimony of the victim supplies ample support for the convictions. See
8 State v. Soliz, 1969-NMCA-043, 18, 80 N.M. 297,454 P.2d 779 ("As a general rule,
9 the testimony of a single witness is sufficient evidence for a conviction.").
10 	{4} 	In his memorandum in opposition Defendant focuses on countervailing
11 	inferences which might have been drawn, based upon his own testimony. [MIO 2]
12 "However, as a reviewing court, we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw
13 	alternative inferences from the evidence." State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, 141,
14 	130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793. 	Moreover, the jury was free "to reject [Defendant's]
15 	explanation of his actions and to draw its own inferences based on the evidence."
16 State v. Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, 177, 128 N.M. 192,991 P.2d 477.
17 	{5} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
18 	disposition and above, we affirm.

1 {6} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4 	WE CONCUR:
s 	l\.6 M. MONICA ZAMO
7 	~4:ir 	-8 JEN~ATTREP,Judge
.. ..
y.~
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
2