{21} The State also suggests that even if it is appropriate to rely on the date the written judgment and sentence is filed in some cases, it is not the exclusive measure. Relying on State v. Garcia, 2022-NMCA-008, 504 P.3d 567, the State argues that in some instances, a sentence is imposed "when the district court informs the defendant orally of the sentence, reduces that sentence to writing, and the defendant begins serving that sentence." We are not persuaded that the double jeopardy principles discussed in Garcia require us to depart from Romero’s assessment that "Rule 5-801 authorizes the filing of a motion within ninety days of the entry of the judgment and sentence."

, the Court finds it particularly relevant that, under New Mexico law, a defendant has no “reasonable expectation of finality in an otherwise interlocutory sentence such as an oral sentence” unless “the defendant has begun serving the sentence.” State v. Garcia, 504 P.3d 567 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021), cert. denied (N.M. 2022). In fact, if a final written judgment conflicts with a previous oral sentence in New Mexico, the written judgment controls- even to the detriment of defendants.

Regardless, the Court finds it highly relevant that, under New Mexico law, a defendant has no "reasonable expectation of finality in an otherwise interlocutory sentence such as an oral sentence" unless "the defendant has begun serving the sentence." State v. Garcia, 2022-NMCA-008, ¶ 21, 504 P.3d 567 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021), cert. denied (N.M. 2022). In fact, if a final written judgment conflicts with a previous oral sentence in New Mexico, the written judgment controls—even to the detriment of defendants.

{¶10} An axiomatic principle of appellate review is that "[w]e do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict." State v. Garcia, 2022-NMCA-008, ¶ 9, 504 P.3d 567 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), cert. denied (S-1-SC-39085, Jan. 6, 2022). Further, and particularly relevant to Defendant's argument regarding the intent element of possession of a controlled substance, we emphasize that the question of a defendant's "knowledge or intent generally presents a question of fact for a jury to decide."