July 7, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Rogerio Vallejos, No. A-1-CA-38127

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opmion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/7/2020 11:17 AM

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, f
Plaintiff-Appellee, Oe on ae
Mark Reynolds
Vv. No. A-1-CA-38127
ROGERIO VALLEJOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
Karen L. Townsend, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
William O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
43} Defendant Rogerio Vallejos appeals from his conviction for battery on a peace
officer. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm Defendant’s

conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition with this Court, which

we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

10

il

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

23 On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction. [DS 3] In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on this
issue. In response, Defendant continues to assert that there was insufficient evidence
for his conviction, and specifically contends that the State’s failure to disclose a
video recording of the subject incident should have cast sufficient doubt on the
State’s case such that a reasonable fact-finder could not have found him guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. [MIO 1] As such, Defendant’s argument challenges the
weight the jury gave the evidence below. However, appellate courts do not reweigh
the evidence or reassess credibility determinations on appeal. See State v. Slade,
2014-NMCA-088, § 13, 331 P.3d 930 (‘[A]ppellate courts do not search for
inferences supporting a contrary verdict or re-weigh the evidence because this type
of analysis would substitute an appellate court’s judgment for that of the jury.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099,
4 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 where the weight and
credibility lic). Rather, on appeal, we review whether the fact-finder’s “decision is
supported by substantial evidence, not whether the trial court could have reached a
different conclusion.” /n re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039, § 15, 121 N.M. 562,

915 P.2d 318.

433 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed
disposition, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

4) ITISSO ORDERED.

4

JULLE J.V

WE CONCUR:

BRIANA H. Z