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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WECHSLER, Judge.

{1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold Defendant's conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

{2} Defendant has raised a single issue, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that she was driving. [DS 10] As we previously observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the State presented evidence that Defendant repeatedly admitted that she had been driving. [DS 2-5, MIO 2] This is sufficient to support the factfinder's determination. See, e.g., State v. Orquiz, 2012-NMCA-080, ¶ 4, 284 P.3d 418 (observing that although no witnesses testified to seeing the defendant driving, his admission at the scene was sufficient for a jury to infer that he actually drove).

{3} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant focuses on the countervailing evidence, including the "physical evidence" (i.e., the position of the driver's seat), [MIO 10] in support of her continuing assertion that the verdict is unsupported by the weight of the evidence. [MIO 9-11] However, insofar as we cannot re-weigh the evidence, Defendant's argument does not supply a basis for reversal. See, e.g., State v. Owelicio, 2011-NMCA-091, ¶ 34, 150 N.M. 528, 263 P.3d 305 (observing, in a similar case, that "[a]lthough there was other evidence and testimony indicating that [the d]efendant was not the driver, the factfinder [was] entitled to weigh these inconsistencies against [the d]efendant's admission and the evidence suggesting she was driving[,]" and that on appeal this Court "will not disturb the factfinder's determinations" on such matters). We therefore reject Defendant's assertion of error.

{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.

{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurs.