
    RUDY BOLDEN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
    No. 12238
    February 25, 1981
    624 P.2d 20
    
      
      Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Peter J. Christian-sen, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.
    
      Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General; Robert J. Miller, District Attorney, and James Tufteland, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
   OPINION

By the Court,

Mowbray, J.:

A jury convicted Rudy Bolden of robbery. He seeks reversal on the sole ground that the evidence presented at his trial did not support the jury’s verdict. We disagree and affirm Bolden’s judgment of conviction.

THE FACTS

Bolden, on February 14, 1979, pointed a .38 caliber revolver at a food checker in a grocery store and grabbed a handful of currency from the cash register. He fled the premises. The checker, soon after the robbery, identified an old photograph of Bolden from 250 prints at the police station. She repeated the identification several weeks later from a more recent picture. Finally, the checker made positive in-court identification of Bolden.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO CONVICT

Appellant presented an alibi defense: he and his aunt testified that he was in Louisiana on February 13 and 14, 1979; he introduced an envelope, without a letter, postmarked February 13, 1979, mailed from Louisiana and purportedly bearing Bolden’s nickname “Shyface” as the return addressee.

This Court has repeatedly held as recently as Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 580 P.2d 473 (1978) “that where ‘there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.’ Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477, 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). Accord, Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 576 P.2d 740 (1978); Porter v. State, 94 Nev. 142, 576 P.2d 275 (1978). Where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Cunningham v. State, 94 Nev. 128, 575 P.2d 936 (1978); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974).”

For these reasons we affirm the appellant’s judgment of conviction.

Gunderson, C. J., and Manoukian, Batjer, and Springer, JJ., concur.  