This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Timothy Bradford Ames,
Filed September 23, 2003
Polk County District Court
File No. K902744
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Ronald I. Galstad, East Grand Forks City Attorney, 411 Second Street NW, Suite D, P.O. Box 386, East Grand Forks, MN 56721 (for respondent)
Steven M. Light, Lindsey D. Haugen, Larivee & Light, Ltd., US Bank Building, 600 DeMers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Willis, Judge; and Anderson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant challenges his conviction of driving while impaired, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions for a continuance and to extend the deadline for pretrial motions. He also contends that the district court erred by allowing defense counsel unlicensed in Minnesota to appear on his behalf. We affirm.
By no later than September, Ames had retained new counsel, who filed a notice of substitution and a certificate of representation in the district court on September 23, 2002. On the same day, he filed a motion to extend the deadline for pretrial motions and a motion for a continuance. At a hearing before trial the following day, the district court denied Ames’s motions. Ames entered a Lothenbach plea, and the district court found him guilty. This appeal follows.
Ames argues finally that the district court “erroneously allowed [his] previous counsel to appear in the State of Minnesota without being licensed to do so.” Ames cites In re Discipline of Jorissen, 391 N.W.2d 822 (Minn. 1986), in which the supreme court held that repeatedly engaging in law practice while suspended warranted disbarment. While the court in Jorissen points out that the unlicensed practice of law in Minnesota violates a Minnesota statute, see id., none of the issues discussed in that case relates to the grounds for Ames’s appeal, and the decision provides no basis for reversal of Ames’s conviction. We decline, therefore, to consider Ames’s argument. See State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997) (declining to consider assignment of error based on mere assertion and unsupported by argument or authority).