Alan Ellis, et al., Appellants, vs. Laserquipt International, Inc., et al., Respondents.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C0-98-664

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Stephen Lee Farr,

Appellant.

 Filed December 22, 1998

 Affirmed

 Amundson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. KO-97-3243

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie L. Wolf, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Holtan, Judge.[*]

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 AMUNDSON, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction for possession of crack cocaine on the grounds of insufficient evidence. We affirm.

 FACTS

On October 2, 1997 at approximately 4:00 p.m., Officer Michael Davis was on his way to work when he saw Stephen Farr driving his vehicle southbound on Edgerton. Officer Davis was aware of a probable cause pick-up order for Farr from the prior evening. Officer Davis called in to be sure his information was accurate and contacted his partner Officer Jeffrey Dick. In the meantime, Farr picked up a few passengers and was heading southbound on Case when Officer Dick pulled him over.

Officer Dick did a pat down search of Farr and was about to handcuff him when a plastic baggie dropped from Farr's hand. Officer Dick placed Farr in the squad car and then returned for the baggie. A subsequent test proved that the baggie contained crack cocaine. The district court found that the testimony of Farr and his witness Quinton Green conflicted with the two officers' testimony. Additionally, the district court determined that the officers' testimony was more credible than either Farr's or Green's.

 D E C I S I O N

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, an appellate court does not retry the facts. Rather, this court is limited to an analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the trier of fact to reach the verdict. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989) (citations omitted).

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, given the facts in the record, the fact finder could reasonably determine the defendant committed the crimes for which he or she was convicted. State v. Wilson, 535 N.W.2d 597, 605 (Minn. 1995). Further, where the facts and legitimate inferences drawn from the facts could reasonably lead the fact finder to conclude that a defendant is guilty, the conviction should not be disturbed. State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn. 1988).

Farr challenges the district court's finding that the crack cocaine belonged to him, claiming that he was never in possession of the baggie. Green, a passenger in the car, corroborates most of Farr's version of events, but this version conflicts with most of the officers' testimony. Because this decision was based on the district court's determination of witness credibility our standard of review is limited. This court must assume the trier of fact believed the state's witness(es), while disbelieving evidence to the contrary. State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). The record provides sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Therefore, we affirm Farr's conviction for possession of a controlled substance under Minn. Stat. § 152.025 subd. 2(1) and 3(a) (1996).

 Affirmed.

[*]Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.