This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Abdulkhadir Hussein Ali, petitioner,
Filed May 9, 2006
Olsmted County District Court
File No. K2-02-4730
Bradford Colbert, Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners, 875 Summit Avenue, Room 254, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)
Hatch, Attorney General, 1800
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant waived a jury trial, and the trial was held before the court. Appellant’s theory of the case was that although he was one of three individuals present at the scene of the controlled buy, he was not the person who sold the drugs to the CRI. The district court found that the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant made the illegal drug sale and found him guilty of the charged offense.
Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on identity. The court denied the petition, and this appeal followed. Appellant continues to assert that the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that he was the person who sold the drugs, and he challenges the credibility of the CRI. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and because we defer to credibility determinations made by the district court, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
postconviction court’s decision will not be overturned unless there has been an
abuse of discretion.” Dukes v. State, 660 N.W.2d 804, 810 (
seeking relief in a postconviction petition has the burden of establishing the
facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant argues on appeal that the primary evidence against him consisted of photos of the offense being committed and that he was not the person pictured in the photos. As the postconviction court ruled, the evidence before the district court consisted not merely of these photos, but also testimony from the CRI and several police officers, as well as audio and videotaped surveillance. The CRI identified appellant as the person who sold him cocaine, and an officer at the scene of the sale also identified appellant as the person who handed an item to the CRI. Another officer corroborated this, testifying that he observed the CRI at the mall as he approached appellant to make the controlled buy. Further, the CRI and several officers identified appellant as 2-Fo. This evidence is sufficient to support the determination that appellant made the illegal controlled-substance sale.
regarding the CRI’s credibility, appellant argues that the CRI’s testimony is
suspect because the police paid him at least $1,900 over a period of four
months. Appellant further notes that the
police never recovered any of the buy money and that the car that the suspect
drove away in was not registered in appellant’s name. All of these arguments go to the credibility
of the CRI, and because it is within the district court’s province to assess
the credibility of witnesses, we defer to those determinations.
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to uphold appellant’s conviction of the third-degree controlled-substance crime, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief.