March 20, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Clifton White, No. A-1-CA-37008

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-37008
5 	CLIFTON WHITE,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Angela J. Jewell, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur; Chief Public Defender
13 	Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 HANISEE, Judge.
18 	{I} 	Defendant Clifton White appeals from the district court's revocatioq of his
19 probation. On appeal, Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence
20 presented to establish that his violation was willful. This Court issued a calendar
21 	notice proposing to affirm the revocation of Defendant's probation. Defendant has
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/20/2019 11:18 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 filed a memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed disposition, which we
2 have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
3 	{2} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant asserts that the district court
4 erred in concluding that his probation violation was willful where he came forward
5 with evidence that he had taken other drug tests during that same time period that
6 were negative and that he had made arrangements with his probation officer to
7 reschedule his drug test. [MIO 4-5] However, the only testimony that Defendant
8 asserts established these facts is his own. To the extent that Defendant's probation
9 officer testified that he had missed a required drug test and did not also testify to
10 agreeing to reschedule the drug test with Defendant, this presents an issue of
11 	credibility for the district court to decide.
12 	{3} 	As this Court noted in our notice of proposed disposition, we must "view[] the
13 	evidence in a light most favorable to the State and indulg[ e] all reasonable inferences
14 	in favor of the [district] court's judgment." State v. Erickson K., 2002-NMCA-058,
15 ,-r 21, 132 N.M. 258, 46 P.3d 1258. We further noted that contrary evidence does not
16 support a basis for reversal. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ,-r 19, 126 N.M. 438,971
17 P .2d 829. As the arguments that Defendant continues to assert on appeal -~sk this
18 Court to reweigh evidence, we must decline to do so and affirm. See State v. Salas,
19 	1999-NMCA-099, ,-r 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for the
2

1 fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to determine
2 where the weight and credibility lie).
3 	{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in this Court's notice of
4 proposed disposition, we affirm the district court's revocation of Defendant's
5 probation.
6 {5} 	· IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9 WE CONCUR:
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
3