This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Timothy Dale Corbin,
Filed March 20, 2007
Benton County District Court
File No. K2-04-956
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Tibor M. Gallo, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2134; and
Robert Raupp, Benton County Attorney,
Courthouse, 615 Highway 23,
John M. Stuart, State Public
Defender, Susan Andrews, Assistant Public Defender,
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
On appeal from a conviction of violation of an order for protection, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Because we conclude that the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence and that the claims raised in appellant’s pro se supplemental brief are meritless, we affirm.
April 2002, Benton County District Court issued an order for protection (OFP)
barring appellant Timothy Corbin from having any contact, direct or indirect,
with his ex-wife and their children. In
In May 2004, appellant attended his daughter’s high-school graduation ceremony, which took place in the gymnasium of his daughter’s high school. When he arrived, appellant walked past the bleachers where his ex-wife and two of his children were seated and sat several rows behind them. When his daughter received her diploma, appellant left his seat and moved toward the front of the gymnasium, stopping directly next to the row in which his ex-wife and children were seated. After taking a picture of his daughter, appellant made eye contact with his ex-wife as she gestured at him to leave. According to his ex-wife, appellant stood on the bleachers next to them for at least five minutes before he returned to his seat. After the ceremony ended, appellant attempted to take pictures of his youngest daughter, but when his ex-mother-in-law shielded his daughter’s face with a piece of paper, appellant became angry and called her a “bitch.” When appellant’s son and youngest daughter attempted to leave the gymnasium after the ceremony, appellant blocked them by shadowing their movements.
In July 2004, appellant was charged with one count of violating a domestic-abuse order for protection under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(a)(d)(1) (2004). Because appellant had already been convicted four times of violating an OFP, the new offense was tried as a felony. At the time the complaint was filed, appellant was serving a 33-month sentence for first-degree burglary and a 55-month sentence for an attempted first-degree controlled-substance crime. Following a one-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. In September 2005, appellant was sentenced to one year and one day in jail, to be served consecutively to his previously imposed sentences. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of violating the OFP. He argues that there are “serious doubts” as to whether his conduct at his daughter’s graduation constituted a violation of a condition of the OFP. In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant also alleges various due-process and constitutional violations.
considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review “is limited
to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when
viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit
the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State
v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (
Appellant maintains that neither his attendance at his daughter’s high-school graduation nor his attempts to photograph his daughters constitute a violation of the OFP. At trial, appellant testified that “to my understanding, there was no no-contact order, so if there was no no-contact order, I could be in the same public place as my wife and children.” However, the record clearly shows that the OFP in effect at the time of the graduation read, in relevant part: “Respondent shall have no contact, either direct or indirect with Petitioner/child(ren), whether in person, with or through other persons, by telephone, letter, or in any other way . . . .”
Furthermore, appellant admitted that he knew the OFP was in effect at the time he attended his daughter’s graduation and that he knew his ex-wife and children would likely be there. Appellant also admitted that he brought a friend with him to the ceremony and testified that he asked his friend to accompany him because “I wanted to have somebody there with me just in case [my estranged wife] pulled something like this, where, you know, she was going to say that I did something. I wanted to make sure that I had somebody with me that could verify what I did and what I didn’t do.”
Although appellant stated that he did not know that his ex-wife and children were seated directly in front of him until midway through the ceremony, he admitted that he did not change seats or leave the gymnasium when he discovered where they were sitting. Appellant’s ex-wife, his son, and his ex-mother-in-law testified that he remained in the gymnasium after making eye contact with his ex-wife, that he took a picture of his eldest daughter, and that he attempted to take a picture of his youngest daughter. Appellant admitted that he called his ex-mother-in-law a “bitch” when she prevented him from taking a picture of his youngest daughter. Appellant’s son testified that when he and his sister attempted to leave the gymnasium, his father shadowed their movements: “[w]hen we walked to one side of the bleachers, he would walk to the same side and, you know, vice versa.”
After examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that appellant violated the no-contact provision of the OFP.
his pro se supplemental brief, appellant also argues that his due-process
rights have been violated, that he has been deprived of his parental rights,
and that the state engaged in malicious prosecution. These arguments fail for the following
reasons. First, appellant raises these
claims for the first time on appeal.
Generally, this court will not consider issues that were not raised
before the district court. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (