This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA BACA,
Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Michael E. Martinez, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General,
Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender,
Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for
Appellant
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR:
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
{1} Defendant appeals
from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed
summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a
memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain
unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of error, we uphold the revocation of
Defendant’s probation.
{2} The pertinent
background information was previously set forth. We will avoid undue
reiteration here, focusing instead on the content of the memorandum in
opposition.
{3} Defendant renews
his argument that the State failed to prove that he violated the terms and
conditions of his probation by committing the offense of shoplifting. [MIO 5-6]
However, as we previously observed, the State met its burden of proof by
presenting the eyewitness testimony of the loss prevention officer. [CN 2-3;
MIO 2-3] Although Defendant continues to assert that he did not participate in
the shoplifting, contending that his girlfriend committed the offense alone,
[MIO 6] the district court as finder of fact was not required to credit that
testimony.
See generally State v. Sutphin,
1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21,
107 N.M.
126,
753 P.2d 1314 (“The fact finder may reject defendant’s version of the incident.”);
State v. Sanchez,
1990-NMCA-017, ¶ 10,
109 N.M. 718,
790 P.2d 515
(observing that while acting as the finder of fact at a probation revocation
proceeding, the trial court could properly weigh the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses),
abrogated on other grounds by State v.
Wilson,
2011-NMSC-001,
149 N.M. 273,
248 P.3d 315 (2010),
overruled on
other grounds by State v. Tollardo,
2012-NMSC-008,
275 P.3d 110 (2012).
{4} For the foregoing
reasons, we affirm.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge